Today’s Legal Updates

Monday, 23th May 2022




Article – 322 Expenses of Public Service Commissions

The expenses of the Union or a State Public Service Commission, including any salaries, allowances and pensions payable to or in respect of the members or staff of the Commission, shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund of India or, as the case may be, the Consolidated Fund of the State.

Today’s Legal Updates :-

  1. On Thursday in a significant ruling of the Supreme Court held that Permanent Lok Adalats have both conciliatory and adjudicatory powers.  (Canara Bank v. G S Jayarama)
    • A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and PS Narasimha held that while dealing with a case, Permanent Lok Adalats have to first try to settle the dispute, and only if there isn’t any agreement between the parties can it proceed to decide the matter on merits.
    • Only if the parties fail to reach an agreement on the fifth step, can the Permanent Lok Adalat proceed to the final step and decide the dispute on its merits.
    • The Act indicates that there are similarities between Lok Adalats and Permanent Lok Adalats: (i) they can both attempt conciliation proceedings with the parties before them, and can pass awards recording the terms of settlement agreed upon by the parties (ii) in doing so, they are both bound by principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles and (iii) their awards, deemed to be decrees of courts, will be final and cannot be challenged in an appeal. Yet, despite these similarities, there are crucial differences under the statute.
    • The PLA would first conduct conciliation proceedings and attempt to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute. However, if the parties fail to reach an agreement, it shall decide the dispute, as long as the dispute does not relate to an offence. Section 22-D further indicates that the PLA is empowered to decide the dispute between the parties on merits.
  2. A BJP leader and lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who has filed a public interest litigation petition before Supreme Court challenging the Constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (Act), has now moved the apex court seeking impleadment in the Gyanvapi mosque dispute.
    • the application said, It is submitted that Hindus Jains Buddhists Sikhs have right to profess, practice propagate religion as provided in their religious scriptures and Article 13 prohibits from making law which takes away their rights. Moreover, the status of mosque can be given only to such structures which have been constructed according to tenets of Islam and mosques constructed against the provisions contained in Islamic law cannot be termed as Mosque.
    • The mosque constructed at temple land cannot be a mosque, not only for the reason that such construction is against Islamic law, but also on grounds that the property once vested in the deity continues to be deity’s property and right of deity and devotees are never lost, howsoever long illegal encroachment continues on such property.
  3. On Monday the Delhi High Court issued notice to the Delhi Police on the bail appeal of Mohammed Saleem Khan, a garment exporter who has been named in the Delhi Riots larger conspiracy case.
  4. On Monday District and Sessions court Kollam, Kerala convicted Kiran Kumar, in the dowry death case of his wife Vismaya.
  5. Last Week the Supreme Court held actual use of violence is not always a sine qua non (essential condition) for invoking provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). (Abhishek vs State of Maharashtra)
    • Actual use of violence is not always a sine qua non for an activity falling within the mischief of organised crime, when undertaken by an individual singly or jointly as part of organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate. Threat of violence or even intimidation or even coercion would fall within the mischief.
    • Strict adherence by the authorities concerned to the requirements of MCOCA also cannot be stretched beyond common sense and practical requirements in terms of the letter and spirit of the statute.
    • It is not in doubt that the provisions of MCOCA need to be strictly construed and for their application, an unlawful activity has to fall within the periphery of organised crime….So far as the applicability of the rule of strict construction qua MCOCA is concerned, it being a special penal statute, this much is clear that no one is to be made subject to this law by implication or by presumption; and all doubts concerning its application would, ordinarily, be resolved in favour of the accused.
    • In other words, the rule of strict construction of a penal statute or a special penal statute is not intended to put all the provisions in such a tight iron cast that they become practically unworkable, and thereby, the entire purpose of the law is defeated.
    • A bare look at clause (e) of Section 2(1) of MCOCA makes it clear that ‘organised crime’ means any unlawful activity by an individual singly or jointly, either as a member of organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion or other unlawful means. The suggestions on behalf of the appellant to limit the activity only to the use of violence is obviously incorrect when it omits to mention the wide-ranging activities contemplated by clause (e) of Section 2(1) of MCOCA, i.e., threat or violence or intimidation or coercion or other unlawful means.
    • The frame of the proposition that the object ought to be gaining pecuniary benefit or other ‘similar’ benefit is not correct as it misses out the specific phraseology of the enactment which refers to undue economic or other advantage apart from pecuniary benefit.
    • The submissions on behalf of the appellant for consideration of his case because of application of stringent provisions impinging his fundamental rights does not take away the impact of the blameworthy conduct of the appellant. Any claim towards fundamental rights also cannot be justifiably made without the person concerned himself adhering to and submitting to the process of law.
  6. On Monday in a significant ruling of the Supreme Court has held that Section 63 of the Copyright Act, which penalizes infringement of copyright, is a cognizable and a non-bailable offence. (M/s Knit Pro International vs State of NCT of Delhi)
    • It is observed and held that offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable and non-­bailable offence. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court taking a contrary view is hereby quashed and set aside and the criminal proceedings against respondent no. 2 for the offence under sections 63 & 64 of the Copyright Act now shall be proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own merits treating the same as a cognizable and non­-bailable offence.
    • the bench said adding that the language of the provision in Part II of First Schedule is very clear and that there is no ambiguity, hus, for the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, the punishment provided is imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine. Therefore, the Magistrate may sentence the accused for a period of three years also. Only in a case where the offence is punishable for imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only the offence can be said to be non­-cognizable.
    • Thereby the High Court has committed a grave error in quashing and setting aside the criminal proceedings and the FIR. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings/FIR under Section 63 of the Copyright Act deserves to be quashed and set aside.
  7. A Varanasi Court is slated to hear a civil suit filed by Hindu devotees staking claim on the Gyanvapi mosque and the right to worship inside the premises in the ground that the same was a Hindu temple and still houses Hindu deities.
  8. On Friday the Rajasthan High Court directed News 18 journalist Aman Chopra to appear before the Investigating Officer (IO) on May 27 for further interrogation in connection with the Alwar riots. (Aman Chopra vs State of Rajasthan)
    • the single judge directed, The petitioner is hereby directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 27.05.2022, for interrogation which shall take place between 10:30 a.m to 5:00 p.m. The petitioner shall be allowed 45 minutes break to have lunch etc.
  9. A Varanasi court hearing the Gyanvapi Mosque-Kashi Vishwanath Temple dispute will decide tomorrow whether to take the advocate commissioner’s survey report of the Mosque into account and invite objections to the same before commencing the hearing of the application of the Muslim party regarding the maintainability of the suit.
  10. On Monday the Kerala High Court granted interim protection from arrest to former law maker PC George in a case registered against him for making communal remarks against Muslims in a public forum.  (PC George v State of Kerala)
    • the Court said in its interim order, The petitioner is granted interim bail till Thursday on the condition that he shall not make any communal statements to the public or to the media.
  11. On Friday the Allahabad High Court granted bail to a man accused of committing an offence under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, on the condition that he deposits ₹25,000 in the UP Gosewa Ayog, Lucknow within four weeks of his release.  (Sonu Kasai v. State of Uttar Pradesh)
    • The applicant shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) in ‘U.P. Gosewa Ayog, Lucknow’ within four weeks from the date of his release from jail and, file receipt thereof in the trial Court.
    • Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record, as well as totality of facts and circumstances and keeping in mind that there is no public independent witness and FSL report is still awaited as also that co-accused have already been released on bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail.
  12. On Wednesday the Delhi High Court issued notice to the Delhi government in a plea to restore facilities to dispense sanitary napkins for girl students in all government-run schools.
    • the Court said in its order, The mere absence of a running contract may not be a good enough reason to do away with a social measure. The GNCTD could evolve a policy to deal with the situation whenever the existing contract lapses with time or is terminated.
  13. On Monday the Delhi High Court directed the Delhi Government to file a comprehensive affidavit in response to a petition alleging that the government is failing in its duty to regulate the pet shops in the national capital.
    • The Court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition been filed by a group of people working for animal welfare arguing that the Delhi government has failed to implement the Prevention to Cruelty to Animals (Pet Shop) Rules, 2018.
    • The Pet Shop Rules statutorily obligate the formation and functioning of State Animal Welfare Boards, which playa regulatory role overseeing animal trade and breeding including the registration of pet shops. Despite the notification of the Pet Shop Rules as far back as in 2018, the Respondents have blatantly ignored their responsibilities and have failed to register even a single Pet Shop in Delhi till date.
  14. While hearing a series of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) cases, Justice Gopinath P of the Kerala High Court flagged another worrying phenomenon that children may need to be protected from – political indoctrination.
    • Justice Gopinath, during a casual exchange with the Bar, remarked that he had seen a “provocative” video of a child “spewing hatred” at a political rally.
    • Children being forced to take part in political rallies and being made to voice all sorts of provocative slogans. That is some new kind of attraction it seems. How far is that legal?
    • the judge said, Are they not fostering a new generation that grows up with this religious hatred in mind? I was just wondering about the fact that when this child grows and he becomes a major, his mind will already be conditioned to this kind of rhetoric. Something must be done.
    • Children must be totally prohibited from taking part in these rallies, sloganeering etc. Using them like this should not be ok. They do not have the legal right to vote or even drive till they are 18. Under the guise of freedom of speech and religion, can they be made to be a part of political rallies or religious rallies? He does not know what he is saying.
    • I just want to know whether there is any law which prohibits this. These children as they grow up will grow up with this hatred inside them , in their mind. They’ve already started sloganeering.
    • the Court had said, No doubt, SDPI and PFI are extremist organisations indulging in serious acts of violence. All the same, those are not banned organisations.
    • It is the common case that activists of the SDPI/PFI were behind the attack. There were clashes between the activists of the SDPI/PFI on the one hand and activists of the RSS on the other. There are series of attacks and counter attacks between them.
    • the Court said, This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that even after this incident, after completing arguments in this case, two such incidents have happened in Palakkad. Consequently, one person each of the rival groups have been killed.
  15. On Monday the Supreme Court bemoaned the recent tendency to cast aspersions on judges and make frivolous allegations against them, a phenomenon which the Court said, has become a “new fashion”.
    • A vacation bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Bela M Trivedi said that it is very rampant in Uttar Pradesh and Chennai.
    • the Court remarked, Now, it is becoming a new fashion to making allegations against judges. The stronger the judge, the worse the allegations. It is happening in Bombay, rampant in UP, Madras.
    • Justice Chandrachud observed, Judges are assaulted. There is no protection of judges across our district judiciary, sometimes not even a lathi-wielding policeman.
    • This man is completely incorrigible. He belongs to a class of lawyers who are absolutely incorrigible. They are a blot on the legal profession.
    • the bench said, Look at his conduct! Very contemptuous. He has no respect for the administration of justice and the finding of contempt as well as sentence cannot be regarded as disproportionate.
  16. On Monday the Delhi High Court suspended the four-month prison sentences awarded to two directors of a company who were convicted for allegedly conspiring to cheat the Government of India in 2003 to get a coal block in Odisha allocated in their favour. (Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, Nirmal Kumar Agarwal v. CBI)
    • It does not appear that the convicts herein are likely to evade the process of law in as much as despite their not having been released neither before the institution of the charge sheet nor thereafter in as much as they were not incarcerated at any stage coupled with the factum that the period of more than 6 ½ years has lapsed from when the trial commenced (sic).
    • the Court further directed, Applicants shall keep their mobile phones on and drop a pin on the Google map to ensure that their location is available to the Investigating Officer of the case. Applicants shall commit no offence whatsoever and shall not make any contact with the prosecution witnesses.
  17. On Monday the Delhi High Court has asked the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) led Delhi government to disclose the number posts of teachers, principals and vice-principals lying vacant in the government run schools in the national capital.
    • On the one hand, Delhi Govt. has been boasting that the education model of Delhi is one of the best education model in Delhi as well as have state of the Art infrastructure in the Govt. schools but when there is a great scarcity of teaching staff in Govt. schools, how the children get the good education.
    • Most of the schools have not been equipped with CCTV cameras and the guards are not there at the main gate of the schools, due to that unwanted and antisocial elements may come in the school and causes nuisance in the school which also hampers the studies of the students in the school.
  18. On Monday the Karnataka High Court extended its earlier interim stay on the order of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seizing ₹5,551.27 crore from the bank accounts of Xiaomi India. (Xiaomi Technology India vs Union of India and ors)
    • the order of May 12 had stated, It is clarified that the petitioner is at liberty to take overdraft, and make payments excluding royalty from such overdraft. It is a matter between the petitioner and the bank.
    • the Court had said, Due to paucity of time, matter cannot be considered. Therefore, matter is adjourned to May 23.
  19. Today the Supreme Court of India has conferred senior designation on 51 retired High Court judges.
    • Delhi High Court
      1. Justice AK Pathak
      2. Justice Vinay Kumar Jain
      3. Justice Rajiv Sahal Endlaw
      4. Justice Vijay Kumar Shali
      5. Justice Man Mohan Singh
      6. Justice Vinod Goel
      7. Justice Gurindar Singh Sistani
      8. Justice Ved Prakash Vaish
      9. Justice Veena Birbal
      10. Justice Jag Jivan Ram Midha
    • Bombay High Court
      1. Justice Bhushan P Dharmadhikari
      2. Justice Dilip Babasaheb Bhosale
      3. Justice Sunil Prabhakarrao Deshmukh
      4. Justice Zaka Aziz-ul-Haq
      5. Justice Ravi Krishnarao Deshpande
      6. Justice Ravindra Manoharrao Borde
      7. Justice Rajesh Govind Ketkar
      8. Justice Kishor K Sonawane
    • Punjab & Haryana High Court
      1. Justice Rajive Bhalla
      2. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
      3. Justice AjayTewari
      4. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina
      5. Justice Ravinder Prakash Nagrath
      6. Justice Ramendra Jain
      7. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal
    • Allahabad High Court
      1. Justice Pankaj Naqvi
      2. Justice Vishnu Chandra Gupta
      3. Justice Rajesh Kumar Agarwal
      4. Justice Amar Saran
      5. Justice Sudhir Kumar Saxena
    • Rajasthan High Court
      1. Justice Dr. Vineet Kothari
      2. Justice Sangeet Raj Lodha
      3. Justice Dinesh Chandra Somani
      4. Justice Govind Mathur
    • Kerala High Court
      1. Justice TB Radhakrishnan
      2. Justice Hariprasad A
      3. Justice Ramachandran Nair TR
    • Madras High Court
      1. Justice B Rajendra
      2. Justice M Sathyaranarayanan
      3. Justice K Ravichandrabaabu
    • Uttarakhand High Court
      1. Justice Sarvesh Kumar Gupta
      2. Justice Lok Pal Singh
    • Calcutta High Court
      1. Justice Sudip Ahluwalia
      2. Girish Chandra Gupta
    • Jammu and Kashmir High Court
      1. Justice Maharaj Krishna Hanjura
      2. Justice Bansi Lal Bhat
    • Andhra Pradesh High Court
      1. Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu
      2. Justice Matam Venkataramana
    • Jharkhand High Court
      1. Justice Tapen Sen
    • Karnataka High Court
      1. Justice Dr K Bhakthavatsala
    • Patna High Court
      1. Shyam Kishore Sharma
  20. On Monday the Delhi High Court asked Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board to respond to a public interest litigation petition alleging malpractices and black marketing by agents while booking helicopter tickets for Amarnath Yatra.
  21. On Monday the Supreme Court Collegium has recommended that ten additional judges of the Allahabad High Court be made permanent judges of that court.
    1. Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori;
    2. Justice Subhash Chandra Sharma;
    3. Justice Subhash Chand (Presently working in Jharkhand High Court on Transfer)
    4. Justice Saroj Yadav;
    5. Justice Mohd Aslam;
    6. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha;
    7. Justice Sadhna Rani (Thakur);
    8. Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi;
    9. Justice Ajai Tyagi, and
    10. Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
  22. On Monday the Delhi High Court issued notice to the Central government on a petition filed by the Indian Professional Nurses Association, challenging certain sections of the Military Nursing Service Ordinance, 1943 and the Military Nursing Service (India) Rules, 1944 , on grounds that both provide only for appointment of female nurses in the Indian military.  (Indian Professional Nurses Association v. Union of India)
    • A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Sachin Datta asked the Central government to respond to the petition within six weeks and posted the case for further hearing on July 28.
    • the Court said, Issue notice. Reply to be filed within six weeks. Rejoinder before the next date. List for further hearing on July 28.
    • The plea also contended that while the matter was still pending before this Court, a new job advertisement for ‘female candidates only’, who have registered and are appearing for NEET (UG), 2022 for admission to the four years BSc Nursing Course, was put out at the Colleges of Nursing of Armed Forces Medical Services (AFMS).
    • It was submitted that the said advertisement constitutes a gender violation and is violative of Articles 14, 15, 19 (1) (g) and 21.
  23. On Monday the Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) government has removed a civil judge from service on a recommendation to that effect by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.
    • Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Munsiff Naveen Jamwal was dismissed on the ground that he took money from an individual on the pretext of getting him a job.
    • the order said, On recommendation of the Hon’ble Full Court of High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor is please to order the removal of Shri Naveen Jamwal Civil-Judge (Junior-Division)/Munsiff from service with immediate effect.

Legal Prudent Fraternity