Today’s Legal Updates

Wednesday, 24th August 2022




Article – 87 Special address by the President.

  1. At the commencement of the first session after each general election to the House of the People and at the commencement of the first session of each year] the President shall address both Houses of Parliament assembled together and inform Parliament of the causes of its summons.
  2. Provision shall be made by the rules regulating the procedure of either House for the allotment of time for discussion of the matters referred to in such address.

Today’s Legal Updates :-

  1. On Wednesday the Karnataka High Court rejected a plea seeking directions to mosques in the State to stop using loudspeakers for the Azan call (call for prayer).  (Chandrashekhar v. State)
    • A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty observed that Azan contains words which violate the fundamental rights of other religious communities.
      • “The contention that the contents of Azan violate the fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioner as well the persons of other faith cannot be accepted,” 
    • The bench further noted that Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India embodies the principles of religious toleration, which are characteristic of the Indian civilisation.
    • The Court noted that Article 25 (1) of the Constitution confers the fundamental right on persons to freely profess, practise and propagate their own religion.
    • the Court said, Undoubtedly the petitioner as well believers of other faiths have the Right to practise their religion. Azaan is a call to Muslims to offer prayers. It is the case the petitioner himself as pleaded in para 6 (b) of the writ petition, that Azan is an essential religious practise of the persons belonging to Islam.
  2. On Wednesday the Kerala High Court stayed the controversial order of the Kozhikode Sessions Court which had, while granting anticipatory bail to activist Civic Chandran, held that sexual harassment case would not prima facie stand if the victim was wearing a “sexually provocative dress”  (State of Kerala v Civic Chandran)
    • the Court said in its order, Prima facie it appears that there was an improper exercise of jurisdiction by the Session Judge while granting bail to the accused. Irrelevant materials of substantial nature are seen relied on to grant bail. The finding of the impugned order that Section will not be prima facie attracted if the victim was wearing sexually provocative dress cannot be justified. In these circumstances, the impugned order shall stand stayed till the disposal of this Crl.MC.
    • the order, Considering the age of the accused, he shall not be arrested till the disposal of this CrlMC.
    • the Court said, In order to attract this Section, there must be a physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures. There must be a demand or request for sexual favours. There must be sexually colored remarks. The photographs produced along with the bail application by the accused would reveal that defacto complainant herself is exposing to dresses which are having some sexual provocative one (sic). So Section 354A will not prima facie stand against the accused.
    • the appeal stated, The court below relied heavily on certain photographs of the victim which was published in social media and observed that the defacto complainant herself is exposing to dresses which are having some sexual provocative and therefore Section 354A will not prima facie stand against the accused. The above finding is per se illegal, unjust and have the effect of potentially exposing the survivor to secondary trauma.
    • The Court passed the order on a plea moved by the Kerala Government challenging the order granting bail to Chandran who was charged with committing offenses punishable under sections 354 A(2) &341 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code.
  3.  On Wednesday the Supreme Court will schedule start listing twenty-five Constitution bench matters pending before it from 29th August on Monday.
    • these matters which are before Constitution benches of 5 judges, will be listed for directions including filing of common compilation, filing of short written submissions and tentative indication with regard to time to be taken by lawyers for making their arguments.
    • The cases listed include the following:
      • Challenge to the constitutionality of the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 that provided for reservations for economically weaker sections.
      • WhatsApp’s privacy policy and its users’ right to privacy under Article 21.
      • Granting of minority status to Sikhs in the State of Punjab.
      • Constitutional validity of a state legislation declaring all members of the Muslim community in Andhra Pradesh as part of the “Backward Classes”.
      •  Supreme Court’s power under Article 142 to dissolve a marriage between consenting parties.
  4. On Wednesday the Supreme Court granted open court hearing in the review petition filed by Congress lawmaker Karti Chidambaram challenging the top court’s July 27 verdict upholding the validity of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).  (Karti P Chidambaram v. The Directorate of Enforcement)
    • the order said, The application for oral hearing is allowed. List the matter in court on August 25, 2022.
      The Court had also upheld the validity of Sections 3 (definition of money laundering), 5 (attachment of property), 8(4) [taking possession of attached property), 17 (search and seizure), 18 (search of persons), 19 (powers of arrest), 24 (reverse burden of proof), 44 (offences triable by special court), 45 (offences being cognizable and non-bailable and twin conditions for grant of bail by court) and 50 (statements made to ED officials).
    • the judgment said, ECIR cannot be equated with FIR and ECIR is an internal document of ED. Supply of ECIR to accused is not mandatory and only disclosure of reasons during arrest is enough. Even the ED manual is not to be published since it is an internal document.
  5. On Wednesday a Varanasi court reserved its order in a plea by the Muslim party challenging the maintainability of the suit filed by Hindu parties seeking worship rights inside the Gyanvapi mosque in the Gyanvapi-Kashi Vishwanath dispute.
    • The present plea was filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) by the Committee of Management of Anjuman Intezamia Masajid.
    • The Muslim parties meanwhile filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC challenging the maintainability of the suit on ground that the Places of Worship Act of 1991, which was introduced at the height of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, seeks to protect the status of all religious structures as they stood on August 15, 1947.
    • The Hindu parties then contended before the District Court that without taking into account the survey report, the maintainability of the suit cannot be decided, since the nature of the religious structure is the subject matter of the dispute.
  6. On Wednesday the Kerala High Court held that courts cannot restrain a Muslim man from invoking irrevocable Talaq as it is an act in accordance with the Muslim law and doing so would violate his rights under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.  (Anvarudeen v Sabina)
    • the High Court held, The Court should not forget the mandate of Article 25 of the Constitution of India, which not only allows one profess religion but also to practice.I n essence, if any orders are passed restraining one from acting in accordance with the personal belief and practice, that would amount to encroaching his constitutionally protected rights. No doubt, aggrieved can challenge any action emanates out of exercise of faith and practice; if it was not done in accordance with the personal law, belief and practice but that stage would arise only after the performance of the act. The jurisdiction of the Court is limited in these kinds of processes. The Family Court cannot restrain a person performing his act in accordance with the personal law.
    • the judgment said, The right to marry more than one person at a time is prescribed under the personal law. If the law ensures such protection, it is not for the Court to decide that one person should not act in accordance with the personal conscious and belief in accordance with his religious practices. The Court has no role to restrain or regulate one’s behavior or decision in accordance with the personal law guarantied.
  7. On Wednesday a Noida court granted bail to lawyer Bhaavya Roy, who was arrested and sent to judicial custody after she was booked for hurling abuses at security guards working at her residential society.
    • Roy was, subsequently, booked for offences under Sections 153 A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) of the Indian Penal Code.
  8. On Wednesday the Kerala High Court has held that court managers appointed on temporary basis to the High Court must be regularised and no discrimination can be made between court managers in District Courts and the High Court in this regard.  (Vidya Gopan v High Court of Kerala and others)
    • Merely because the notifications of the District Judiciary for Court Managers of District Courts as well as this Court were different, it cannot be said that the selection to the District Court was different and selection to the High Court was under Article 229 of the Constitution of India. When the selection is through the same procedure, there cannot be a discrimination between the Court Managers appointed in this Court as well as in the District Courts.
    • the High Court said, Moreover, a few of the High Courts in India have understood the order of the Apex Court to be applied for all the Court Managers irrespective of whether they are working in the District Court or in the High Court and consequently the Court Managers working in different High Courts were also regularised as a one time measure.
    • The services of any person already working as a Court Manager in any district should be regularised by the State Government as we are of the considered view that their assistance is needed for a proper administrative set up in a Court.
    •  the division bench ruled, Though order of the Apex Court was in respect of the court managers of district judiciary, the same yardstick can be applied in the case of court managers of High Court also, since all the court managers were selected through a common selection procedure, by way of an interview.
  9. On Wednesday the Saket Courts, Delhi deferred the hearing of a plea seeking restoration of Hindu and Jain temples at the Qutub Minar complex in the capital to September 13.
    • the judge ordered, Written synopsis have also been filed in behalf of the appellants and respondent 1,2,3 in relation to he appeal. Last opportunity to the applicant to argue on the application.
    • the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) made its stand clear before the court, arguing:-
      • The applicant has not claimed specifically any right in the appeal. He has no locus standi because the application has not specifically claimed right in the appeal.
      • He claims rights for large and vast areas in several states and was sitting idle on it for the last 150 years without raising issue before any court. He wakes up some morning and comes to this Court as an impleader without any basis.
      • On account of his absence of filing his reply or taking a stand on this issue in the last 150 years, the issue itself is liable to be dismissed because it is beyond the period of limitation several times over.
      • A similar case came before Delhi High Court where one Sultana Begum claiming to be the wife of great grandson of Bahadur Shah Zafar said that she was in possession of Red fort as she is inherited that…the Court dismissed the petition solely on the ground of delay without going into merits. The facts of the two cases are similar. Here he is not even claiming title or possession.
      • The applicant was not a party to the original suit and this is an appeal…since he was not in the original suit, he has no locus standi to come here and implead himself as one of the parties.
  10. On Wednesday A Mumbai court discharged two accused persons in a money laundering case after it was pointed out that the investigation into the predicate offence against them had been closed.
    • The accused, Babulal Verma and Kamalkishor Gupta, who are presently out on bail, were booked by the Aurangabad City Police in 2020 based on a first information report (FIR) registered against them for cheating and criminal breach of trust under the Indian Penal Code.
  11. On Tuesday the Madras High Court issued an interim injunction in favour of Tamil Nadu Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise V Senthil Balaji, restraining YouTuber and blogger Savukku Shankar from making derogatory videos and statements against him. (V Senthil Balaji v. A Shankar)
    • Justice Krishnan Ramasamy passed the interim order in a suit filed by the Minister seeking damages and a mandatory injunction, while noting that it prima facie appeared that Shankar had indulged in slander.
    • the single-judge observed, In a democratic set up, no one has right to disparage the reputation of another.
    • In such view of the matter, it would be appropriate to restrain the respondent/defendant from making further such derogatory videos and statements, by way of interim injunction.
  12. On Wednesday the case before the Supreme Court on freebies promised by political parties before elections will now be heard by a Bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud, Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana, who was hearing the matter thus far.
    • Senior Advocate Vikas Singh suggested, I was suggesting a retired Supreme Court judge head the committee like Justice Lodha.
    • Solicitor General Tushar Mehta replied, I think a Constitutional body should head the committee to deliberate.
    • CJI NV Ramana then asked, Why doesn’t the Government of India form a committee to study this issue?
    • Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for the Election Commission, asked, If something is there in manifesto, can it be called a freebie? There is enough material available to judge the economic impact of freebies.
    • CJI Ramana went on to observe, Who is in opposition today can come into power tomorrow and they will have to manage this. So things like freebies etc which can destroy the economy. It has to be looked at and I just cannot pass a mandamus. Thus, there needs to be a debate.
    • CJI Ramana said, I will be constituting a three judge bench to hear this led by Justice DY Chandrachud.
  13. On Wednesday Chief Justice of India NV Ramana said A person who retires or is going to retire from his professional life has no value in India, he is slated to demit office in two days.
    • The remark came during the hearing of the case relating to freebies promised by political parties before elections.
    • Senior Advocate Vikas Singh said, I was suggesting a retired Supreme Court judge to head the committee like Justice (RM) Lodha.
    • the CJI NV Ramana responded, The person who retires or is going to retire has no value in this country.
    • Singh said, It is the personality of the person concerned which impacts.
  14. On Wednesday the Delhi High Court has directed the blockage of a website called, that was engaging in the business of selling first copies of famous footwear brands like Nike, Adidas, Louis Vuitton and New Balance at heavily discounted rates.  (New Balance v. Ashok Kumar Trading as ‘
    • the Court added, Accordingly, the defendant no. 2 is directed to provide contact details/addresses of the proprietor/registrants of the website It is further directed to deactivate/block the said website till further orders. The defendant nos. 7 and 8 are also directed to issue necessary directions for blocking of the said website forthwith.
    • The matter will be heard next on 9th November 2022.
  15. On Wednesday Kerala journalist Siddique Kappan has approached the Supreme Court seeking bail who has been booked by the Uttar Pradesh government under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
    • the plea said, The High Court, whilst passing the impugned order has egregiously failed to discharge its bounden duty of examining the entire material on record to decide whether or not a prima facie case has been made out.
    • The State machinery was at tenterhooks owing to the tension prevailing due to various types of information being viral across all forums of media including the internetThe said sojourn of the applicant with co-accused persons who do not belong to media fraternity is a crucial circumstance going against him.
    • All of them were charged under Sections 17 and 18 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Section 124A (sedition), Section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion) and Section 295A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 65, 72 and 75 of the Information Technology Act.
    • the accused is in jail for two years and was arrested by the Police when he had gone to Hathras in Uttar Pradesh on journalistic duty.
      • he CJI sought to know reasons for the delay in filing the plea.
      • The counsel then submitted that the High Court verdict came earlier this month.
      • The CJI then agreed to list the matter on Friday, August 26.
  16. On Wednesday the Bombay High Court granted bail to a 20-year-old who was booked for abetment of suicide of his minor girlfriend after he had allegedly reacted “indifferently” to a WhatsApp message from her informing him that she was pregnant.  (Kunal Chabu Doke vs State of Maharashtra)
    • the Court said, In order to invoke offence under Section 306 of the IPC i.e. abetment to commit suicide, it is necessary to establish its ingredients, being instigation/incitement for the deceased to commit suicide. The sudden reaction of the applicant to the news of pregnancy, may fall short of it.
    • The applicant, at the time of incident, was merely 19 years old and he has reacted in an indifferent manner which can be seen from the WhatsApp chat. The chat also reveals that the two were sharing proximate relationship.
    • the bench noted, In this unfortunate incident, the victim girl took extreme step on being revealed that she had missed her periods by two weeks and on the basis of some pregnancy test where it was revealed to her that she was pregnant. Hence, she established contact with the Applicant on her WhatsApp and immediately when he expressed indifferent approach, she took the extreme step of hanging herself in the house.
    • the Court ordered, Considering the young age of the applicant, his incarceration on the completion of investigation is unwarranted. He shall ultimately face the consequences of his acts, when he shall face the trial.
  17. On Tuesday the Kerala judge, who delivered the controversial order holding that sexual harassment case would not prima facie stand if the victim was wearing a “sexually provocative dress”, has been transferred.
    • the Court had said, In order to attract this Section, there must be a physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures. There must be a demand or request for sexual favours. There must be sexually colored remarks. The photographs produced along with the bail application by the accused would reveal that defacto complainant herself is exposing to dresses which are having some sexual provocative one (sic). So Section 354A will not prima facie stand against the accused.
    • The Session Court order passed by judge S Krishna Kumar had, while granting bail to activist Civic Chandran in a sexual harassment case, stated that to attract the offence under Section 354A of the Indian Penal, there must be some unwelcome sexual advances but in the instant case, the photographs of the complainant showed her “exposing herself in provocative dresses”.
  18. On Wednesday the Uttarakhand High Court stayed a government order (GO) which provided 30 per cent reservation in State services for women domiciled in the State.  (Pavitra Chauhan v State)
    • The petitioners had challenged the order on the ground that it created an Unreserved Uttarakhand Mahila Category which provided lower cut-off marks for women of the State to pass the preliminary examination.
    • he petitioners further submitted that the State government did not have the power to provide domicile-based reservation and that the Constitution of India only allowed reservation on the basis of domicile only by a law enacted by Parliament.
    • he counsel contended that the order was is in violation of the Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, as all the petitioners have secured more marks than the cut-off provided for Uttarakhand women in the preliminary examination.
  19. On Wednesday Businessman Raj Kundra moved a Mumbai court seeking discharge in the porn film case of 2021 in which is an accused.
    • He admitted to having invested in one Armsprime Media Pvt Ltd. (which was a company under investigation in the case) but said that the company was not involved in sale of any pornographic material.
    • the application said, None of the artists (clients of AMPL) ever raised any grievance or any alarms with regards to the so-called alleged filming and broadcasting of erotic content. …The allegations made against the applicant (Kundra) in the entire chargesheet are patently absurd and no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for framing of charge against him.
    • He also contended that the first chargesheet filed in the case had no evidence against him while the supplementary chargesheet did not state that victims were coerced or threatened by Kundra or his associates.

Legal Prudent Fraternity