Friday, 23rd February 2024

The Constitution is not a mere Lawyers Document, it is a Vehicle of Life, and its Spirit is always the Spirit of Age.

Notes: – UN predicts groundwater level in India will reduce to ‘low’ by 2025.’



Article – 366 Definitions

In this Constitution, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say—

  1. Agricultural income” means agricultural income as defined for the purposes of the enactments relating to Indian income-tax.
  2. an Anglo-Indian” means a person whose father or any of whose other male progenitors in the male line is or was of European descent but who is domiciled within the territory of India and is or was born within such territory of parents habitually resident therein and not established there for temporary purposes only.
  3. article” means an article of this Constitution.
  4. borrow” includes the raising of money by the grant of annuities, and “loan” shall be construed accordingly.
  5. clause” means a clause of the article in which the expression occurs.
  6. Corporation tax” means any tax on income, so far as that tax is payable by companies and is a tax in the case of which the following conditions are fulfilled: —
    1. that it is not chargeable in respect of agricultural income.
    2. that no deduction in respect of the tax paid by companies is, by any enactments which may apply to the tax, authorised to be made from dividends payable by the companies to individuals.
    3. that no provision exists for taking the tax so paid into account in computing for the purposes of Indian income-tax the total income of individuals receiving such dividends, or in computing the Indian income-tax payable by, or refundable to, such individuals.
  7. Corresponding Province”, “corresponding Indian State” or “corresponding State” means in cases of doubt such Province, Indian State or State as may be determined by the President to be the corresponding Province, the corresponding Indian State or the corresponding State, as the case may be, for the particular purpose in question.
  8. debt” includes any liability in respect of any obligation to repay capital sums by way of annuities and any liability under any guarantee, and “debt charges” shall be construed accordingly.
  9. Estate duty” means a duty to be assessed on or by reference to the principal value, ascertained in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed by or under laws made by Parliament or the Legislature of a State relating to the duty, of all property passing upon death or deemed, under the provisions of the said laws, so to pass.
  10. Existing law” means any law, Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule or regulation passed or made before the commencement of this Constitution by any Legislature, authority or person having power to make such a law, Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule or regulation.
  11. Federal Court” means the Federal Court constituted under the Government of India Act, 1935.
  12. goods” includes all materials, commodities, and articles.
  13. guarantee” includes any obligation undertaken before the commencement of this Constitution to make payments in the event of the profits of an undertaking falling short of a specified amount.
  14. High Court” means any Court which is deemed for the purposes of this Constitution to be a High Court for any State and includes— (a) any Court in the territory of India constituted or reconstituted under this Constitution as a High Court, and (b) any other Court in the territory of India which may be declared by Parliament by law to be a High Court for all or any of the purposes of this Constitution.
  15. Indian State” means any territory which the Government of the Dominion of India recognised as such a State.
  16. Part” means a Part of this Constitution.
  17. pension” means a pension, whether contributory or not, of any kind whatsoever payable to or in respect of any person, and includes retired pay so payable; a gratuity so payable and any sum or sums so payable by way of the return, with or without interest thereon or any other addition thereto, of subscriptions to a provident fund.
  18. Proclamation of Emergency” means a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 352;
  19. Public notification” means a notification in the Gazette of India, or, as the case may be, the Official
  20. Gazette of a State.
  21. railway” does not include—
    1. a tramway wholly within a municipal area, or
    2. any other line of communication wholly situate in one State and declared by Parliament by law not to be a railway.
  22. Ruler” means the Prince, Chief or other person who, at any time before the commencement of the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, was recognised by the President as the Ruler of an Indian State or any person who, at any time before such commencement, was recognised by the President as the successor of such Ruler.
  23. Schedule” means a Schedule to this Constitution.
  24. Scheduled Castes” means such castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within such castes, races or tribes as are deemed under article 341 to be Scheduled Castes for the purposes of this Constitution.
  25. Scheduled Tribes” means such tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within such tribes or tribal communities as are deemed under article 342 to be Scheduled Tribes for the purposes of this Constitution.
  26. securities” includes stock.
  27. sub-clause” means a sub-clause of the clause in which the expression occurs.
  28. taxation” includes the imposition of any tax or impost, whether general or local or special, and “tax” shall be construed accordingly.
  29. tax on income” includes a tax in the nature of an excess profits tax.
    • (29A) “tax on the sale or purchase of goods” includes—
      1. a tax on the transfer, otherwise than in pursuance of a contract, of property in any goods for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration;
      2. a tax on the transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract;
      3. a tax on the delivery of goods on hirepurchase or any system of payment by instalments.
      4. a tax on the transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration;
      5. a tax on the supply of goods by any unincorporated association or body of persons to a member thereof for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration;
      6. a tax on the supply, by way of or as part of any service or in any other manner whatsoever, of goods, being food or any other article for human consumption or any drink (whether or not intoxicating), where such supply or service, is for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration, and such transfer, delivery or supply of any goods shall be deemed to be a sale of those goods by the person making the transfer, delivery or supply and a purchase of those goods by the person to whom such transfer, delivery or supply is made;]
  30. Union territory” means any Union territory specified in the First Schedule and includes any other territory comprised within the territory of India but not specified in that Schedule.

Today’s Legal Updates: 

  1. On Friday, 23rd February the Supreme Court questioned how the State of Tamil Nadu could have filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court challenging summons issued to five district collectors by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with a money-laundering case. (Directorate of Enforcement vs State of Tamil Nadu and ors)
    • A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal orally observed that the summons could have been challenged by the district collectors themselves, in their personal capacity.
    • Justice Trivedi remarked, How State can file writ petition? Under which law? Against the ED? How State is interested and can file such petitions? … District collectors can file in individual capacity. Government servants have to respond. How can you say you will not?! ED can probe with regard to scheduled offences as per Section 50 (PMLA).
    • Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi submitted, Order was passed in November. We are in February. They are not involved, and not supposed to co-operate if the ED acts without jurisdiction. This is an issue of federalism!
    • the Tamil Nadu government and the five Collectors were summoned by the ED in November.
    • they had jointly filed ten writ petitions challenging the issue of summons and the ED’s power to investigate such offences without the consent of the State government.
    • the High Court opined that the ED’s summons appeared to be part of a “fishing expedition”, and that, prima facie, the ED had no jurisdiction to issue the summons to any of the State’s district collectors.
  2. On Friday, 23rd February the Supreme Court took on record the submission of the Central government that review committee orders regarding internet shutdowns in the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir would be made public but without giving any reasons for such shutdowns.  (Foundation for Media Professionals v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Anr)
    • A Bench of Justices BR GavaiJB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta accordingly disposed of a plea by the Foundation for Media Professionals.
    • The Bench had in January urged the Union Territory administration to publicise review committee orders related to internet bans in the region, making it clear that such information is not for ‘keeping in cupboards’.
    • The application sought publication of the review committee orders passed by the J&K administration in accordance with the apex court’s 2020 judgment in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India.
  3. Recently the Supreme Court asked the Central government whether a new bail law is on the cards in line with a June 2022 landmark judgment advocating the same. (Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and anr)
    • A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti made the query in a February 13 order, which contained a comprehensive list of compliances and queries posed to various High Courts, States and Union Territories as well.
    • the Central government was concerned, the Court sought a response to the following queries:
      1. The Union is directed to inform the Court as to whether any bail law is in contemplation or under preparation.
      2. Whether any assessment has been done to ascertain the requirement of creating further special courts (CBI) in districts with high pendency of cases, with requisite data.
      3. Whether or not the investigative agencies (other than CBI) under the Central government’s ambit are following the directions of the Supreme Court in the Satender Kumar Antil judgment.
    • The Court also called for details of cases where the police officials in States or Union Territories or the CBI have not followed Sections 41 and 41A, CrPC and the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (concerning arrest), as well as the actions taken against erring officials.
    • the Court said it will hear the issues concerning Andhra Pradesh, Andaman and Nicobar, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chandigarh, Punjab and Haryana, Chhattisgarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Delhi, and Goa on May 7 at 2 PM.
  4. Recently the Supreme Court said that it would attempt to bridge the time gap between illegal actions and the restitution of those who have suffered as a result of said actions.  (Manoj Kumar v. Union of India)
    • A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta was dealing with a case where a teacher was denied employment on unfair grounds. After noting that the Court was deciding the appeal five years after it was filed.
    • the Bench said, The delay in this case is not unusual, we see several such cases when our final hearing board moves. Appeals of more than two decades are awaiting consideration. It is distressing but certainly not beyond us. We must and we will find a solution to this problem.
    • the Bench went on to say, It is in this reality and prevailing circumstance that we must formulate an appropriate system for preserving the rights of the parties till the final determination takes place. In the alternative, we may also formulate a reasonable equivalent for restitution of the wrongful action.
    • the Court held that This is an unfortunate situation where the Court finds that the action of the respondent was arbitrary, but the consequential remedy cannot be given due to subsequent developments. One stark reality of the situation is the time that has passed between the order of 2018 impugned herein and the judgment that we pronounce in 2024.
    • The Bench went It is equally incumbent upon the courts, as a secondary measure, to address the injurious consequences arising from arbitrary and illegal actions. This concomitant duty to take reasonable measures to restitute the injured is our overarching constitutional purpose.
    • The inherent difficulty in bridging the time gap between the illegal impugned action and restitution is certainly not rooted in deficiencies within the law or legal jurisprudence but rather in systemic issues inherent in the adversarial judicial process. The protracted timeline spanning from the filing of a writ petition, service of notice, filing of counter affidavits, final hearing, and then the eventual delivery of judgment, coupled with subsequent appellate procedures, exacerbates delays.
    • We appreciate the spirit of the appellant who has steadfastly contested his case like the legendary Vikram, from the year 2017 when he was illegally denied the appointment by the executive order dated 22.05.2017, which we have set aside as being illegal and arbitrary. In these circumstances, we direct the Institute (respondent no. 2) to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation.
  5. On Thursday, 22nd February former judge of the Supreme Court, Justice KM Joseph said “Hinduism is very much a religion,” while discussing the approach of the Supreme Court to Hinduism in several of its judgments.
    • The former judge was delivering a lecture on “the concept of secularism in the Constitution” as part of the continuing legal education program of the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association (KHCAA).
    • Justice Joseph was specifically refuting the rationale adopted by the Supreme Court while attempting to define Hinduism in a batch of 8 cases from 1995 which are commonly referred to as the “Hindutva cases”.
    • In one of the cases, Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Shri Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte & Ors., a three-judge bench headed by Justice JS Verma said, The words ‘Hinduism’ or ‘Hindutva’ are not necessarily to be understood and construed narrowly, confined only to the strict Hindu religious practices unrelated to the culture and ethos of the people of India, depicting the way of life of the Indian people. Unless the context of a speech indicates a contrary meaning or use, in the abstract these terms are indicative more of a way of life of the Indian people and are not confined merely to describe persons practising the Hindu religion as a faith.
    • Justice Joseph pointed out that The Supreme Court has proceeded on the basis of earlier judgments that said it is very difficult to define Hinduism. But Hinduism is very much a religion. I will tell you why. If Hinduism is not a religion, then how will the members of that religion exercise the rights under Articles 25(1) and 26(2)? So Hinduism has to be a religion.
    • Justice Jospeh remarked that Vinayak Damodar Savarkar‘s view of Hinduism and Hindutva, he version of Hinduism which the Court relied upon is all based on judgments of the Supreme Court and other material. Perhaps the political party in question and other political parties which doubt Hindutva, rely upon the words of Veer Savarkar. Savarkar has a version of Hindutva.
    • he explained, Savarkar was elected the President of Hindu Mahasabha in 1937. He was a barrister, a brilliant mind, a poet. He was imprisoned for life for fighting against the British and the allegation made against him by some political parties is that he petitioned for mercy and he was moved from Andaman to another prison. But the fact remains that he was a barrister and he had a brilliant mind. In fact, his take on casteism is that it has no place in Hinduism. What I am up against is the fact that the version of Hindutva according to Savarkar perhaps may not have been gone into by the Supreme Court in the Hindutva cases.
    • Justice Joseph also opined that Hinduism is a unique religion said, Hinduism is an extraordinary and unique religion. If you see Christianity and Islam, you will see a common founder, holy book etc. Hinduism on the other hand has thrown its doors open to all beliefs.
    • he concluded, I am still optimistic that secularism will survive. The optimism comes from the Hindu religion itself. The vast majority of Hindus are completely broad-minded and tolerant and they do not treat religion in the manner that other religions do. The shores of this country were thrown open to Christianity and Islam and there was no war, no army marching. The people, kings, priests, all accepted them.
  6. Recently Delhi’s Saket court granted bail to a man booked for rape on a false promise of marriage he gave a woman on dating app Bumble.  (State v. Gautam Kumar)
    • Judge Sunil Gupta noted, It is settled law that merely because the accused was out on interim bail does not entitle him to be released on regular bail still considering the facts and circumstances along with the valuable right to life and liberty of the applicant and the fact that there was no apprehension of the prosecution or the complainant that the applicant can influence/intimidate the witnesses, it will not be in the interest of justice to send the applicant in custody again.
    • The complainant’s counsel argued that his client gave her consent for the release of the accused on interim bail on January 8 upon the request of his relatives, who had assured her that the accused would marry her. However, he refused to marry her.
    • It was further argued that dating apps like Bumble are used by people to meet and know each other, and it can’t be presumed that their only motive is to engage in casual sex.
    • The court stated that the accused’s refusal to marry the woman could not be taken into consideration for the present application.
  7. Recently the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court will undergo an audit for calculation of its electricity requirement to avoid a repeat of the power failure that crippled the lights and heating system of the Court on a cold winter day. (Aaqib Hussain & Ors. V/s University of Kashmir & Ors)
    • the bench at Srinagar on February 19 was plunged into darkness for hours, the division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi had asked the Chief Secretary of J&K UT to intervene, while describing the situation as pathetic and unbelievable.
    • The Court then that instructed the High Court Registrar Judicial to send a letter to the power company to ensure that “the total requirement of the High Court is calculated and the same be communicated to the PWD to ensure such less incidents does not happen in future.”
    • The Court expressed “must be affixed within the organization as to why a vital equipment that was necessary to supply power to the High Court during the power-cut was under maintenance for two long months”.
    • it ordered, In view of the assurance given by Mr. Sajad Ahmad Naqeeb, Chief Engineer, we are satisfied that no further action needs to be taken in this case. The issue can be given a quietus.
    • The Court had noted while seeking a permanent solution, During Court hours, the High Court has suffered a complete power failure. The generator is also not working. There are no lights. The air heating unit (AHU) is also not functional. It is pathetic and unbelievable that this is the condition of Srinagar Wing of the High Court of High Court of J&K and Ladakh.
  8. Recently the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir disposed of a plea by Iltija Javed challenging travel restrictions placed last year while issuing her a passport, after the Court was informed that these restrictions have since been withdrawn. (Iltija Javed v. Union of India)
    • The submission was made by Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI), TM Shamsi before Justice Sanjeev Kumar.
    • the Court said, From reading of the communication aforesaid, it clearly transpires that the Passport Officer has considered the request of petitioner (Iltija Javed) and in view of the fact that there is nothing adverse reported against him by CID and also having regard to age and future career of the petitioner, the passport office has issued a normal passport certificate with full validity to the petitioner. In view of aforesaid, there remains nothing in this petition for adjudication and, therefore, this petition rendered infructuous and is, accordingly, disposed of.
  9. Recently the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh quashed the issuance of process by a trial court against a man for the commission of the offence under Section 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly slapping his wife in public.  (Mehboob Ali v. Nisar Fatima)
    • Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed that the no offence was made out under Section 354, IPC on account of the man allegedly slapping his wife in public. However, the Court said that an offence under Section 323 of IPC for voluntarily causing hurt could be attracted.
    • the Court’s order said, From the averments made in the complaint, no offence under Section 354 IPC is made out but offence under Section 323 IPC is made out as the respondent has categorically stated that she was thrashed and slapped in public gaze by the petitioner when she had come to attend the proceedings.
    • the order said, This Court is of the considered view that order dated 30-03-2022, so far as issuance of process for commission of offence under Section 354 IPC is considered, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law and, accordingly, the same is quashed whereas the order to the extent of issuance of process under Section 323 IPC is upheld.
    • The trial court proceedings were challenged on the ground that the trial court could not have issued the process for commission of an offence under Section 354 of IPC when the allegations mentioned in the complaint did not make out a case for invoking this provision.
  10. Recently the Delhi High Court ordered several media houses, Facebook, Google, YouTube and other unknown entities to take down news reports and media links showing allegedly defamatory and morphed pictures of a female Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLA from Bihar.
    • Justice Prateek Jalan clarified that the order will not bar news platforms from reporting about the factual controversy regarding the images going viral or the proceedings instituted in this regard, provided that there is no imputation to the genuineness of the images and  equal prominence is given to the MLA’s contention that the images are morphed.
    • the Court said, The order will also not come in the way of publication of any images, if the concerned publisher has verified the veracity of the images and seeks to take the defence of justification in respect of the images in question.
    • The Court considered the case and said that a prima facie case was made for an interim order because if the relief is not granted, it will cause irreparable loss and injury to the legislator.
  11. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on February 16 quashed an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Kolkata admitting a 104-year-old government-owned company into insolvency.  (Ravi Kumar v. Chevrox Constructions Ltd.)
    • The order was passed in an appeal filed by Ravi Kumar, part of the management of the company, Bridge and Roof Company (India) Limited, a public sector enterprise under the Union Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and comes under the administrative control of the Ministry of Heavy Industries.
    • The case began after Chevrox Constructions, a private construction company based out of Ahmedabad, approached the Kolkata bench of NCLT seeking to initiate the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against Bridge and Roof for alleged default in payment of ₹4,47,90,393.
  12. On Friday, 23rd February the Delhi High Court rejected a plea filed by the Managing Committee of Delhi Waqf Board seeking directions that the locals be allowed to celebrate Shab e-barat on the land where the 600-year-old Akhoondji/ Akhunji mosque, graveyard and madrassa once stood.
    • Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav rejected the plea observing that at this stage, the court was not inclined to pass any direction.
    • the Court ordered, Admittedly, as of now the site in question is in the possession of DDA and this court is seized with the main writ petition which is to be heard on March 7. At this stage, this court under the facts and circumstances of the present case is not inclined to pass any directions. Accordingly the application stand dismissed.
    • The mosque was demolished by the DDA on January 30 this year.
    • The Managing Committee of Delhi Waqf Board filed an application before the Court seeking permission for locals to enter the property during the period extending from 30 minutes before sunset on Sunday, February 25 to 30 minutes after sunrise on Monday, February 26.
  13. Recently the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission imposed a fine of ₹15,000 on Honda and directed the company to replace a bike that was found to have a manufacturing defect in its suspension system.  (Markad Mahesh Aasaram v Fine Honda Dealer and Anr)
    •  A coram of presiding member Milind S Sonawane as well as members Nisha A Chavhan and Nagesh C Kumbre observed that numerous repair attempts by the respondents themselves indicated a manufacturing defect.
    • the Commission said, But in the present case, vehicle is repaired by the respondents on so many occasions from the beginning. This fact shows that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle from the beginning and there is no need to call any expert report.
    • it said, In our view, Ld. District Commission Aurangabad has committed the gross error by ignoring this issue.
    • The Commission was hearing an appeal against an order of the Aurangabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that had directed Honda to repair the defect within a month.
    • He informed the Commission that ever since he purchased the motorbike, its suspension system had not been functioning properly. Further, he stated that despite six attempts at repair, the problem persisted.
    • he alleged that the dealership from which he bought the bike had told him that there was no issue with the suspension, attributing the problem to low tire pressure.
    • he lodged a complaint with Honda, stating that only the rear suspension, and not the front, had been replaced, which resulted in back problems.
    • the Commission allowed the appeal and directed both the dealership and Honda to jointly pay ₹10,000 to the appellant towards mental and physical harassment along with an additional ₹5,000 to cover litigation expenses.
  14. Recently the Kerala High Court quashed the State government’s 2015 decision to assign 5.5358 hectares of land at ₹100 per acre to the Kallodi St. George Forane Church which had encroached on the said land. (K Mohandas & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors)
    • Justice PV Kunhikrishnan opined that the government’s decision was a violation of the constitutional rights of persons from tribal communities, especially when there are thousands of landless tribals in the district.
    • the Court said, Poor landless tribals are agitating to get lands for their livelihood and agriculture…In such a situation, as per Ext.P5 (government order), huge Government land is assigned to the 5th respondent (church) invoking the powers of the Land Assignment Act and Rules. I am of the considered opinion that this is not only illegal but infringes the constitutional rights of the tribals including the petitioners. This is nothing but piercing a knife to the hearts of the innocent ever smiling tribals in Wayanad.
    • the Court added, There is no vested right in any person to claim assignment on the registry of Government land. Encroaching on the government land and making illegal constructions on it will not give any vested right to encroachers. The government land should be allotted to the downtrodden and not to the wealthy and mighty people.
    • the Court, however, asked, What is the ‘public interest’ in this case?
    • the Court stated, Simply because some educational institutions and religious institutions or cemetery are constructed after the encroachment, the land cannot be assigned stating ‘public interest.’ Rule 24 has no application at all in this case.
    • The petitioners highlighted that after protests against the starvation deaths of 32 tribals in July-August 2001, a seven-point agreement was reached with the State government which stated that five acres of land would be given to them wherever possible.
    • The State government responded to the petition by submitting that the land assigned to the church contains several schools, a playground, a cemetery, apart from the church itself. It also submitted that the assignment of land was based on Rule 24 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules.
  15. On Thursday, 22nd February the Delhi High Court dismissed a plea filed by Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Mahua Moitra to restrain the Enforcement Directorate (ED) from leaking sensitive and unverified information to the media in relation to the agency’s investigation against her for an alleged violation of the Foreign Exchange Maintenance Act, 1999 (FEMA).
    • Justice Subramonium Prasad pronounced the order.
    • Appearing for Moitra, Senior Advocate Rebecca John argued that I am not against ED’s right to investigate. I am saying I will submit to their jurisdiction. It is about the information being leaked prior to being communicated to me. ED is drip-feeding confidential information to the media.
    • Justice Prasad said, You are a public personality, a public person.
    • Advocate Siddhant Kumar appeared for ANI argued that I am entitled to investigate and publish source-based information. We have been reporting source-based information since a long time. It because of source based information that scandals like Watergate in the US came to light.
    • Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma appeared for the Central government and highlighted that the media got to know about Moitra moving the court in the matter based on source-based information.
  16. Recently the Delhi High Court criticised Global Music Junction Private Limited for issuing notices to various entities including social media platforms that asked them to stop monetising the songs of Bhojpuri singer and actor Khesari Lal Yadav (alias Shatrughan Kumar).
    • Justice Sanjeev Narula said the notices asking the entities to act in compliance with an ex-parte order of the High Court were actually a misrepresentation of the directions issued by the Court. 
    • the Court remarked, This action undermines the integrity of the judicial process and places the Plaintiff to be liable for contempt for non- adherence of binding directions.
    • The dispute stemmed from a suit filed by Global Music in 2022 against Yadav for alleged violation of an agreement to not work with any third-party for creating any new intellectual property or content till September 30, 2025. 
    • The division bench restrained Yadav from engaging with any company except Global Music for monetising any of his new songs till September 30, 2025.
    • Yadav said that the notices amounted to contempt of court since they were issued on the basis of the ex-parte of single-judge order and that a  considerable number of his songs have been “unjustly removed and are now inaccessible on YouTube”.
    • The Court further clarified that Global Music shall not directly write to any party seeking enforcement of the order of injunction. 
    • Justice Narula said, However, the Court deems this argument untenable, as the clarity and precision of the Division Bench Order ensures that the Plaintiff’s rights and interests are adequately safeguarded without the need for direct unilateral enforcement actions.
  17. Recently the Jharkhand High Court rejected Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s petition challenging proceedings in a criminal defamation case filed against him for calling Union Home Minister and former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) President Amit Shah a murder accused.
    • Single-judge Justice Ambuj Nath noted that Gandhi had said that BJP leaders are liars who are drunk with power and that BJP workers will accept a person accused of murder as their president.
    • the Court said while refusing Gandhi’s plea, Prima facie this statement points out that Mr. Rahul Gandhi has imputed that the Bhartiya Janata Party leadership was drunk with power and was composed of liars. It further means that the party workers of Bhartiya Janata Party will accept such person/persons as their leader. This imputation is prima facie defamatory in nature.
    • the Court added, It further means that the party workers of Bhartiya Janata Party will accept such person/persons as their leader. This imputation is prima facie defamatory in nature.
    • the Court said while dismissing the plea, hus, it is evident that the expression “any person” in Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code includes a company or association or a collection of a persons and Bhartiya Janata Party is a prominent political party which is well identifiable and will come within the meaning of Explanation-2 of Section 499 of IPC.
    • The case arose after BJP leader Navin Jha filed a complaint against Gandhi, alleging that Gandhi delivered a speech on March 18, 2018 criticizing the BJP and accusing Shah of being involved in murder.
  18. On Thursday, 22nd February the Madras High Court quashed criminal proceedings against seven students of Coimbatore’s PSG College of Technology who were accused of physically assaulting a junior student and tonsuring his head in an incident of ragging.
    • While Justice N Anand Venkatesh quashed the proceedings after it was told that the accused students and the victim had arrived at a settlement, the judge expressed great dismay over the entire incident and told the accused students to keep in mind that ragging was an “inhuman” act and that one must not derive any pleasure in another person’s miseries.
    •  the judge told What is the purpose of going to college if you will indulge in abhorrent acts such as ragging? It is better to remain illiterate and uneducated than indulging in such acts. Ragging is an inhuman thing. If a person is deriving pleasure by subjecting another human being to torture, it means he is suffering from mental illness.
    • the victim-student, who was also present in the Court along with his father, told Justice Venkatesh that the accused had apologised for their actions. He said that he did not wish to go ahead with the case any further.

For Legal Support Contact: –

Adv. Shiv Kumar (Delhi High Court and Subordinate Court Delhi)

contact no: – 9608762166, Mail:-

Adv. Aishwarya Dorwekar (Bombay High Court and City Civil & Session Court, Mumbai)

Contact: – 8828275839 And Live Advocate

Adv. Upasna Goyal (Punjab and Haryana High Court)

Contact: – Live Advocate

Adv. Vishal Yadav (Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court)

Contact: – Live Advocate

Adv. Manpreet Singh Bajwa (Punjab and Haryana High Court)

Contact: – Live Advocate

Adv. Rajeev Nayan (Patna High Court)

Contact: – Live Advocate

Adv. Dakshreddy B. (Madras High Court and Madurai Bench)

Contact: – 9886049147

Legal Prudent Fraternity