Today’s Legal Prudent

Monday, 18th April 2022




Article – 293  Borrowing by States

  1. Subject to the provisions of this article, the executive power of a State extends to borrowing within the territory of India upon the security of the Consolidated Fund of the State within such limits, if any, as may from time to time be fixed by the Legislature of such State by law and to the giving of guarantees within such limits, if any, as may be so fixed.
  2. The Government of India may, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by or under any law made by Parliament, make loans to any State or, so long as any limits fixed under article 292 are not exceeded, give guarantees in respect of loans raised by any State, and any sums required for the purpose of making such loans shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund of India.
  3. A State may not without the consent of the Government of India raise any loan if there is still outstanding any part of a loan which has been made to the State by the Government of India or by its predecessor Government, or in respect of which a guarantee has been given by the Government of India or by its predecessor Government.
  4. A consent under clause (3) may be granted subject to such conditions, if any, as the Government of India may think fit to impose.

Today’s Legal Updates :-

  1. On Monday Leading pizza chain Domino’s withdrew its suit before the Delhi High Court seeking an injunction against a student, who tweeted the contact numbers of the chain’s senior officials after wrongly receiving a non-vegetarian pizza in place of a vegetarian one. (Jubilant Foodworks Ltd vs Pratik Vinit and ors)
  2. On Monday the Bombay High Court refused to stay the Draft Red Herring Prospectus (DRHP) filed by Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India for the issuance of shares though Initial Public Offering (IPO) to investors.  (Charudatt Changdeo Pawar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.)
    • The petition raised two fold contentions:
      • That the Finance Bill that was a pre-cursor to the Finance Act 2021 could never have been passed as a Money Bill under Article 110 of the Constitution of India.
      • That the Finance Act, and specifically the amendments introduced by it to the LIC Act are ultra vires Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
    • the petition, every single existing policyholder from LIC has a direct, enforceable and realizable interest in surplus. That surplus is, therefore, the “property of” every policyholder and of all policyholders as a class.
    • the order, we do not see how this class of persons can say that the surplus or any part of the LIC fund is their ‘property’ within the meaning of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. It may be one thing to say that a person has an entitlement to receive a dividend or a bonus or some form of payment. That might conceptually be very different from saying that the person has an in specie interest in the fund itself.
  3. On Monday the Karnataka High Court granted permission to the State government to implement provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Act of 2020 that restricts transportation of cattle.  (Mohammed Arif Jameel v. State of Karnataka)
    • The learned Advocate General, on instructions, states that till the Rules framed in exercise of powers under the proviso to Section 5 of the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Ordinance, 2020 are brought into force, no coercive action shall be initiated by the State Government for the breach or violation of Section 5 of the said Ordinance. He states that after the Rules are framed, but before the same are brought into force, the State Government will move this Court so that the petitioners are put to notice that the Rules are likely to come into force.
  4. On Monday the Delhi High Court refused to grant relief to e-commerce platform Snapdeal in its suit seeking injunction against domain name registrars (DNRs) from offering any domain names with its trademark “SNAPDEAL”.  (Snapdeal Private Limited v GodaddyCom LLC and Ors)
  5. On Monday A special POCSO court in Mumbai sentenced a man to five years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹25,000 after it found him guilty of sexually assaulting his daughter, who was five years old at the time of the incident.  (The State of Maharashtra vs Paul Micheal Vaz)
    • the Court said, As we know, the accused is father against whom the allegations made by the victim daughter that ‘he touches her vagina (over her clothes)’. It is proved beyond doubt against the accused. A father is fortress, trustree of his daughter. This crime, therefore, becomes more grievous.
    • The accused is father of the victim aged five years hardly at the relevant time. The advocate for the accused submitted to show leniency for the accused as he is a reputed person, working person and the victim is his own daughter. In my view, these reasons are neither special nor adequate.
  6. On Monday the Delhi High Court suspended the sentence of an ex-National Security Guard (NSG) officer in a sexual assault case involving minors, while making a note of the case pendency before it. (Gavade Kisan Bapu v. Union of India & Ors)
    • It is also not in dispute that looking at the workload and pendency of the old appeals in this court, the present appeal is not likely to be heard before July, 2022, when five years of sentence of the appellant/applicant shall be completed.
    • He had been also granted paroles eight times between the period March 19, 2019 and August 31, 2021, and not even a single complaint is on record to show that during these periods of paroles, he has committed any other offence.
    • The appellant stands dismissed from service, so there is no question of him visiting the NSG Campus or causing trauma to the victims, who may or may not residing in the same campus now.
    • The petitioner misused his position as an NSG official and has tainted the image of the prestigious security organisation, i.e., NSG by committing aggravated sexual assault on three minor children; the faith of the common people in the Army personnel would be adversely affected if the sentence of the petitioner is suspended. The petitioner was an adult male and victims of the petitioner were minor girls.
    • I am inclined to allow suspension of the sentence of the present applicant/appellant on execution of personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Gurugram, Haryana.
  7. On Monday the Supreme Court reserved its verdict in the plea seeking lifting of the ban on export of iron ore mined from Karnataka. (Samaj Parivartan Samudaya vs State of Karnataka)
    • the CJI said, Leading newspaper editorials say this can happen or that can happen. That cannot be done here. Sad thing is You (Centre) have not made your stand clear.
    • the ASG stated, Clear stand is export of iron ore can be allowed. Sum and substance is competing interests do not matter to us.
    • Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued, The affidavit by steel ministry says India produces 120 million tons every years and it needs 192 million tons every year. The ministry is saying we need to increase production of steel and thus we need more iron ore. It is not saying that there is surplus of iron ore which we can export.
    • Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued, This iron ore will go to China for their pellet industry and they want to send this for the exponential profits they will earn. 2013-24 Karnataka price was much more than in Odisha. Then again in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018. With international prices so high, why will companies like Vedanta sell it to India?
  8. The Delhi High Court has held that denial of conjugal relationship does not amount to “exceptional hardship” or “exceptional depravity” and, therefore, cannot be a ground for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent before the mandated cooling-off period of one year.
    • the Court said, Once the Parliament, in its wisdom, has legislated that denial of cohabitation/conjugal relationship over a period of one year, or more, would tantamount to cruelty, it cannot be said that denial of sex simpliciter within the period of one year, would be a case of exceptional hardship.
    • the Court explained, Mere denial of sex by one, or both the parties to the other, cannot be described as an act of exceptional depravity. Such conduct cannot be described as wicked or immoral behavior, or as perverse behavior lacking in moral decency, more so when temperamental differences lie at both ends. No doubt, it may tantamount to a matrimonial misconduct, but that is not what we are examining presently.
    • The intent behind the framing of Section 13, 13B and Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act was to protect both – the individuals, as also the marriage. What the legislature has sought to address by way of divorce on the ground of cruelty, cannot be categorized as exceptional hardship or depravity so as to by-pass the well-established procedure.
  9. NALSAR Hyderabad has begun its search for a new Vice-Chancellor, given the imminent superannuation of Prof Faizan Mustafa, who is set to demit office on 31st July 2022.
    • The qualifications for the post are:-
      • A distinguished academician with a minimum of 10 years of experience as Professor of Law in a University or 10 years of experience in an equivalent position in a reputed research and/or academic organisation with proof of having demonstrated academic and administrative leadership and possessing the highest level of competence, integrity, morals and institutional commitment.
      • They shall be a full-time salaried officer of the University.
      • They shall hold office for a term of five (5) years or until the attainment of the age of seventy (70) years, whichever is earlier, and shall be eligible for re-appointment for further term(s) till the attainment of seventy years of age.
      • They shall not be more than sixty-five (65) years of age as on April 12, 2022.
    • The Search Committee includes:-
      • Prof SP Gautam – Convenor (Former Vice-Chancellor, Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh)
      • Prof Upendra Baxi (Former Vice-Chancellor, Delhi University)
      • Prof Gurmeet Singh (Vice-Chancellor, Pondicherry University)
    • The duly filled in indication of interest may be sent either by email at or by speed post, after super-scribing the envelope ‘Statement in support of the Indication of Interest for the post of Vice-Chancellor’ to The Nodal Officer, Search Committee, NALSAR University of Law, Justice City, Shameerpet, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad – 500101, Telangana.
  10. On Monday the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that 6 kilograms of Ganja is not commercial quantity under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.  (Dinesh @ Dinesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh)
    • he quantity of contraband involved in this case is 6 KGs of ganja which is not a commercial quantity. Therefore, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act has no application to the present facts of the case.
  11. On Monday the Chhattisgarh High Court sought responses from the Government of Chhattisgarh, the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Chhattisgarh State Bar Council in a public interest litigation (PIL) calling for monthly stipend for junior advocates.  (Sana Meman and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others)
  12. On Monday the Supreme Court observed that a victim of a crime cannot be asked to wait till the trial begins to assert his/ her right to participate in criminal proceedings against the accused, while cancelling the bail granted to Ashish Mishra in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case. (Jagjeet Singh vs Ashish Mishra)
    • the judgment, A ‘victim’ within the meaning of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) cannot be asked to await the commencement of trial for asserting his/her right to participate in the proceedings. He/ she has a legally vested right to be heard at every step post the occurrence of an offence. Such a ‘victim’ has unbridled participatory rights from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision.
  13. Last Week the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court constituted a committee to ensure that there are no malpractices in the Education Department of the Maharashtra government.  (Brijmohan Mishra vs State of Maharashtra)
    • The Committee is requested to call for the suggestions from the stakeholders including the managements running various schools, parents and teachers, social workers, some of the officers of the Education Department and representatives of the NGOs and submit a report recommending the remedial measures to be taken in the future to curb such alleged malpractices in the Education Department, so as to stop any further diversion of public money by such alleged fraudulent activities.
    • In our view, these steps, though belatedly taken by the Education Department to control such malpractices are not sufficient. This Court has to go to the root of the matter and to find out why such malpractices were allowed to be practiced in the last two decades. The culprits who are benefited of said malpractice by diverting the public money by inflating the number of students in various aided schools should be penalized by anappropriate action … the action taken by the State Government is not even to the extent of 5 per cent.
  14. On Monday the Bombay High Court observing that there were hardly any first information reports (FIRs) registered against prevailing child marriages, and court asked the Maharashtra government to explain the steps it has taken to prohibit the practice.  (Child Marriage Prohibition Committee and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
    • The public interest litigation (PIL), therefore, sought the following reliefs:-
      • Frame and declare set of rules to implement Prevention of Child Marriage Act (PCMA).
      • Direct registration of offences of child marriages but initiate process of cancellation of child marriages and keep its record.
      • High Court may frame guidelines based on some implementable solutions suggested to make PCMA effective.
      • Direct to form a committee along with members of Child Line and other NGOs to draft a Standard Operating Procedure to properly implement the Act.
  15. On Monday the Delhi High Court sought the response of the Central government, Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi (IIT Delhi) on a plea seeking constitution of a committee to formulate guidelines so that visually impaired persons can access online and technology-based banking services.  (George Abraham v Union of India and Ors)
    • The said approach can guide this Hon’ble Court in its endeavor to uphold the rights guaranteed to the 12 million blind people and 50 million visually impaired persons in India under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and Sections 3(1), 13(1) and (2), and 42 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
  16. On Monday A public interest litigation (PIL) petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking probe by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) into the recent communal violence at Delhi’s Jahangirpuri and in seven other States during Ram Navami.
    • the plea said, The acts of violence attacking the devotees during procession by firing and stone pelting and vandalising vehicles creating communal tension is a threat to the sovereignty of the country and instigate the Hindu community to retaliate as religion forms the essence of the values of the community.
  17. On Saturday Former Gujarat High Court judge and Chief Justice of the Patna High Court, Justice JN Bhatt passed away on age of 76 years.
  18. On Monday Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind has filed a public interest litigation petition (PIL) before the Supreme Court seeking directions to the Central and State governments that no residential accommodation or commercial property be demolished as a punitive measure. (Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind v Union of India)
    • the petition said, A number of ministers and legislators, including the Chief Minister and the Home Minister of the state of Madhya Pradesh, have made statements advocating such acts and especially threatened the minority groups with destruction of their homes and commercial properties in case of riots.
    • the petition said, Such measures by the governments undermine the criminal justice system of our country, including the important role of the courts.
  19. On Monday the Supreme Court took exception to accused in the GainBitcoin scam, Ajay Bhardwaj, failing to disclose the username and password of his cryptowallet to the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
    • Why have not give the email and pass? You must share the details. We should dismiss it for non-compliance. SC is not a district court where you can play like this….You make a statement here and then no compliance. We are not some Tis Hazari Court where you can play like this. First comply with the order, then come here.
  20. On Monday the Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted by Allahabad High Court to Union minister Ajay Mishra’s son Ashish Mishra, the main accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence in which 8 people were killed after being allegedly mowed down by Mishra’s vehicle.
  21. Last Week the Supreme Court ordered the release of a woman, who had allegedly hurled casteist abuses against another woman belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community who was the president of her village’s education committee.  (Kunti Kumari vs State of Jharkhand)
    • the Court held, There is no previous conviction of the appellant. Further, Section 11 of 1958 Act provides that an order under this Act may be made by any court empowered to try and sentence the offender to imprisonment and also by the High Court or any other court when the case comes before it on appeal or in revision. Thus, this Court under the 1958 Act itself can pass an order at this stage.
    • Section 3 of the 1958 Act confers power upon the court to release certain offenders after admonition when a person is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 379 or Section 380 or Section 381 or Section 404 or Section 420 of the IPC or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years, or with fine, or with both, under the IPC or any other law, and there is no previous conviction proved against such offender.
    • Considering the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate that the appellant may be released instead of carrying out the sentence after due admonition. Accordingly, agreeing with the conviction under Section 504 IPC, the appellant is directed to be released after admonition.

Legal Prudent Fraternity