Today’s Legal Updates
Tuesday, 1st March 2022
💐 HAPPY MAHASHIVRATRI 💐
Legal Awareness :- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PART III FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Cultural and Educational Rights
Article – 30 Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions
(1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
(1A) In making any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of any property of an educational institution established and administered by a minority, referred to in clause (1), the State shall ensure that the amount fixed by or determined under such law for the acquisition of such property is such as would not restrict or abrogate the right guaranteed under that clause.
(2) The State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational
institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language.
Today’s Legal Updates :-
- The Supreme Court observed that the existence of a bank account can be presumed, if a cheque is returned by a bank with the endorsement remark of ‘Account Frozen.’ (Vikram Singh v. Shyoji Ram)
- After perusing the dishonored cheque received by the appellant from the bank, the apex court was surprised to note that while on one hand, the bank managers had specifically deposed that no such bank account was opened and maintained in their bank, on the other hand the cheque drawn by the respondent in favor of the appellant, was returned with the remark ‘account frozen’ in respect of the same cheque.
- Yesterday the Delhi High Court issued notice to political leaders from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Congress and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in a batch of petitions seeking their impleadment in a hate speech case related to the Delhi Riots of February 2020.
- Justice Patil said, “This is very unfortunate, whoever is trying to implead me. Firstly, I was invited to be on the fact finding committee for the Delhi riots. I went there, visited all places. I used the logic Hemant Karkare had used – Muslims will not want to harm other Muslims, they will not want to destroy the properties of Muslims. 90% loss of property is of Muslims. Secondly, I went to Delhi after the CAA NRC protest and I spoke against Hindutva vadis. I congratulated the women who had protested. Maybe this (impleadment) is because of that. I don’t know anything beyond. I don’t know what is the reason for it,”
- The Chhattisgarh High Court held that if a husband brings home a concubine during his marriage to another woman, and if the wife leaves the home as a result, it would not amount to desertion. (Uttamram v. Kayaso Bai)
- The husband moved the High Court in appeal against an order of the family court refusing to grant him a divorce on the ground of desertion.
- He claimed that he married his wife 26 years ago, and for the past 25 years, she had deserted him without cause.
- The wife stated that the appellant had kept a concubine and due to the torture meted out to her, she left.
- The Court found the claim of the wife to be true and held that leaving for this reason did not amount to cruelty.
- Thus, the order of the family court refusing grant of divorce was upheld.
- the Bench remarked, “When the marriage solemnised between the parties 26-27 years back and three children were born thereafter, how it can be presumed that the wife has deserted the husband for the last about 25 years i.e. immediately after marriage,”
- the Court observed while concluding that there was a reasonable cause for the wife to leave even though she did not intend to. Thus, the husband could not claim desertion, “…one lady was kept by the appellant during subsistence of marriage with the respondent and she was forced to leave her matrimonial home to stay at her parental house because of the torture meted out to her,”
- US-headquartered international law firm Baker McKenzie is set to review its arrangements with some of its Russian clients in the wake of the ongoing Ukraine crisis, “Baker McKenzie is reviewing and adjusting our Russia-related operations and client work to align with all applicable sanctions and comply with these fast-evolving laws. We do not comment on the details of specific client relationships, but this will mean in some cases exiting relationships completely.”
- The Bombay High Court restrained authorities in Kolhapur district of Maharashtra from destroying crops on a farmer’s field to organise Mahashivratri festivities. (Shashikala Surendra Ambade & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
- “We do not understand under which provision of law, such an endorsement is made/allowed and how the plot of the petitioners can be taken away for a period of 15 days especially when the petitioners are growing soyabean crop on the said field,”
- “Even if this practice has been adopted in the past, the same cannot be relied upon as a precedent and the Court is required to stop such practice once it is opposed by the Petitioners,”
- The Andhra Pradesh High Court granted bail to two advocates who were accused of making derogatory comments against the judiciary and judges on social media. (Gopal Krishna Kalanidhi v. State of Andhra Pradesh)
- Yesterday the Supreme Court observed that in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, no writ of mandamus can be issued granting the writ for specific performance of the contract/ work order. (Municipal Council Gondia v. Divi Works and Suppliers, HUF and Others)
- “In absence of any evidence and material on record and there being disputed questions of facts the High Court ought not to have passed the impugned judgment and order directing the Council to continue the work order and accept the goods from the original writ petitioner No.1 and to make the payments as per the work order.”
- Tomorrow the Bombay High Court will hear the Habeas Corpus plea filed by Maharashtra Cabinet Minister Nawab Malik challenging the case of money laundering registered against him by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and seeking his immediate release from ED custody.
- Yesterday the Delhi High Court directed the Delhi Police to examine the possibility of deploying beat constables who are properly trained and sensitised to deal with encroachments in the capital’s Chandni Chowk area. (Chandni Chowk Sarv Vyapar Mandal (Regd) v. Delhi Police Through Commissioner of Police and Ors)
- The Delhi High Court held that the trial court while cancelling the bail of a man accused of allegedly killing his wife should not have lost sight of the enshrined principles of bail including the consideration of the seriousness of the offence. (Rohtash Singh v. State)
- The Karnataka High Court bemoaned the negligence by a doctor in conducting medical examination of a 15-year-old sexual assault survivor leaving the prosecution with no material regarding the alleged act. (Pradeep v. State of Karnataka)
- “Inspite of within two days of the examination of the victim, the doctor has not opined whether she was subjected to sexual act or not. The very purpose of producing the victim before the Medical Officer for examination is not served on account of callous act of the Medical Officer, who was working in K.C.General Hospital, Bengaluru. As a result of the negligence on the part of the Doctor, there is no material regarding heinous act of the petitioner,”
- A Judicial Magistrate in Tamil Nadu’s Salem district was stabbed by his office assistant inside the court complex.
- M Ponpandy, Judicial Magistrate IV, was attacked by A Prakash inside the judge’s chamber.
- The local police alleged that Prakash had recently been transferred from Omalur court and was unhappy with the same. He asked the Magistrate the reasons for the transfer when he was told that the transfer was ordered by Principal District Judge. He then took out a knife and attacked the Magistrate.
- Safety of judges has been a major talking point among legal fraternity after the death of Dhanbad Additional District and Sessions judge Uttam Anand who was killed in July 2021 when a vehicle rammed into him while he was out on his morning walk.
- Today the Bombay High Court mused as to why Varavara Rao, accused in the Bhima Koregaon case, was only granted 6 months of bail despite its strong observations regarding medical conditions at Taloja prison. (P Varavara Rao v. State of Maharashtra & Anr)
- “Is there anything to provide for review after 6 months? Or has there been a challenge to the order? Because he is 82 years old, he may be drug resistant. In 6 months has the Taloja Prison improved? He will be exposed to more diseases…it is better he is kept in a sanitized place rather than prison,”
- “With the kind of observations in the order – prima facie we don’t see any scope of review. And this order has attained finality…”
- Today the Bombay High Court in Goa issued notice on a petition challenging two administrative orders issued by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) that established Special Benches at New Delhi to hear and decide cases that fall under the jurisdiction of the NGT’s Western Zone Bench, including cases from the State of Goa.