Today’s Legal Updates

Tuesday, 25th January 2022


Legal Awareness :- Republic Day

What we should all know about Republic Day is that many gave up their lives and liberty so that we can have this guiding document. We got one of the most wonderful constitutions in the world. I don’t claim it is perfect – because nothing created by humans can be perfect.

Yet, if we reduce the Republic Day ceremony to a mindless ritual, we are letting India down.

I am not talking about a Bhagat Singh like fanatic devotion. I am just talking about doing our jobs dutifully and with the right intention. Were we doing even that?

If we bend before anyone powerful instead of upholding the law, do these parades have any meaning left? Is the Republic Day celebration not supposed to remind us of our obligation to put duty before self?

Today Legal Updates :-

  1. President Ram Nath Kovind addresses Nation on eve of 73rd Republic Day.
  2. Nation to celebrate 73rd Republic Day. As per tradition, National Flag will be unfurled followed by National Anthem with a booming 21-gun salute. Parade will commence with President taking salute. This year Parade to begin at 10.30 AM instead of scheduled time of 10 AM.
  3. Today the Supreme Court reaffirmed that courts cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing a State to provide reservation to any class or category of citizens.  (State of Punjab v. Anshika Goyal)
    • The Supreme Court said that “We are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a grave error in issuing a writ of mandamus and directing the State Government to provide for 3% reservation/quota for sports persons, instead of 1% as provided by the State Government,” 
      • The Court ruled:
        • Articles 15 and 16 allowing State to make reservation are enabling provisions
        • It is up to the State to frame policy providing for reservation
        • Courts cannot issue writ of mandamus directing State to provide for reservation
        • Punjab & Haryana High Court was wrong in directing the State government to provide for 3% reservation/quota for sportspersons.
  4. Today the Madras High Court reserved orders on a plea by Air Corporation Employees Union seeking directions to the Central government to protect their rights and service conditions before the government proceeds with Air India’s disinvestment and privatisation. (Air Corporation Employees Union v. Union of India)
  5. Today the Karnataka High Court held that in cases of rape, if the victim is below the age of 16 years, she has to be heard before passing order on bail application filed by the accused.  (Lalitha v State of Karnataka)
  6. Today Low cost airline, SpiceJet has approached the Supreme Court against a Madras High Court judgment which had refused to interfere with an order of company court admitting a winding up petition against the airline.
  7. Today the Supreme Court issued notice to the Central government and the Election Commission of India (EC) on a plea seeking directions to Election Commission of India to seize election symbol and deregister political parties, which promise/distribute freebies using public funds before elections.
  8. Today the Supreme Court agreed to hear a petition moved by Nitesh Rane, member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly (MLA) and son of Union Minister Narayan Rane, challenging the Bombay High Court order which rejected his anticipatory bail plea in connection with an attempt to murder case.
  9. Today a  Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by an RTI Activist against the decision of a single-judge who had dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to remove Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s photograph from the Covid-19 vaccination certificate.  (Peter Myaliparampil v State of Kerala)
  10. Today the Kerala High Court granted the prosecution 10 more days to examine the additional witnesses summoned in relation to the actress sexual assault case in which Malayalam cine actor Dileep is one of the accused.  (State of Kerala v Pulsar Suni)
  11. Today the Delhi High Court has said that it will consider reducing the cost imposed on Bollywood actress Juhi Chawla for her petition challenging the 5G technology roll-out from ₹20 lakh to ₹2 lakh.  (Juhi Chawla and Ors v Science and Engineering Research Board and Ors.)
  12. Today former Principal Associate at Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Mitali Mehta has re-joined Desai & Diwanji as a Partner in the Corporate Practice.
  13. Today the Delhi High Court observed that police from other States cannot be allowed to pick up residents of Delhi without informing the Delhi Police.  (Azad Singh Gulia v Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors)
  14. Today the Supreme Court declined to grant interim relief to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in a plea challenging the Central government’s decision to refuse renewal of their licences under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA).  (Global Peace Initiative v. Union of India)
  15. Today the Bombay High Court reserved its verdict on the plea filed by a lawyer seeking directions to the Maharashtra government to appoint Director General of State Police (DGP) based on recommendations of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).  (Datta Mane v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
  16. Today the Karnataka High Court reitarated that a breach of the promise to marry is not cheating under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). (Venkatesh v State of Karnataka)
    • Justice K Natarajan quashed an FIR against a man and his family, holding that a breach of promise to marry does not constitute an offence of cheating under Sections 417 and 420 of the IPC.
    • The complainant had filed a case, alleging that she met the man 8 years ago, they both fell in love and he agreed to marry her. However, as his family supported his marriage with another woman, he left the complainant and married the other woman instead.
    • “A promise of marriage and breach of contract will not attract the provisions of Section 417 and 420 of the IPC,” 
  17. Today the Supreme Court issued notice in a petition raising the question of whether a High Court has the power to direct the release of vehicles seized by police authorities.  (State of Rajasthan v. Ram Nath)
  18. Today the Orissa High Court upheld a decision on the compulsory retirement of a judicial officer on the grounds of inefficiency and not meeting required standards. (Ashok Kumar Agarwala v. Registrar General of Orissa High Court, Cuttack)
  19. Today advocate Raj Kapoor told the Delhi High Court in the marital rape case hearing a wife cannot compel parliament to prescribe a particular punishment against her husband just to satisfy her ego.  (RIT Foundation v Union of India)
    • “Husband can be prosecuted under several other section of IPC like 323, 324, 498A, 506, 509 and DV Act, 2005 where cruelty includes physical and sexual abuse… Wife cannot compel the Parliament to prescribe a particular punishment against the husband to satisfy her ego. The only difference in Section 376 Indian Penal Code and Domestic Violence Act is the quantum of punishment,” 
  20. The Rajasthan High Court has designated 26 lawyers as Senior Advocates.
    • The designations were made in exercise of the powers under section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Rajasthan High Court (Designation of Senior Advocates) Guidelines 2019.
      • At Jodhpur Bench:
        1. Sanjeev Johari
        2. Manoj Bhandari
        3. Dhirendra Singh Champawat
        4. Manish Shishodia
        5. Kuldeep Mathur
        6. Dr. Ashok Soni
        7. Sachin Acharya
        8. Rajesh Panwar
        9. Vineet Jain
        10. Dr. Vikas Balia
        11. Sandeep Shah
      • At Jaipur Bench:
        1. Arvind Kumar Gupta
        2. Ajeet Kumar Bhandari
        3. Anant Kasliwal
        4. Satyendra Kumar Gupta
        5. Mahendra Kumar Shah
        6. Ajay Kumar Bajpai
        7. Bharat Vyas
        8. Syed Shahid Hasan
        9. Raghuvendra Bihari Mathur
        10. Madhav Mitra Bharma
        11. Anil Mehta
        12. Gayatri Rathore
        13. Vivek Raj Singh Bajwa
        14. Rajeev Surana
        15. Sanjay Jhanwar
  21. A 3-judge bench of the Madras High Court has held that convicts do not have fundamental right to conjugal relationship as a matter of course though such right is available for specific purposes like fertility treatment. (Meharaj v. The State)
  22. Today the Supreme Court held that a High Court is prohibited from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction while exercising its powers of revision under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). (Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy)
  23. Today the Bombay High Court urged the administrative section of tax department to take steps to implement the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) scheme in its letter and spirit in order to tackle pending tax litigation from the pre-GST regime.  (Nabeel Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.)
  24. The Gujarat High Court has designated four lawyers as Senior Advocates.
    1. Jayant Madhurlal Panchal
    2. Rajul Krishnachandra Patel
    3. Unmesh Dhruvakumar Shukla
    4. Devang Girish Vyas
  25. Today the Supreme Court gave permission to an operational creditor of a company under insolvency proceedings, to continue arbitration proceedings despite approval of corporate insolvency resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors and the top court itself. (Fourth Dimension Solutions Ltd. v. Ricoh India Ltd)
  26. The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court quashed a first information report (FIR) registered against a man for a Facebook post labelling late Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) Bipin Rawat mercenary of the fascists”. (G. Sivarajaboopathi v. The State)
    • In reaction to the former CDS’s demise, the petitioner made a Facebook post
    • The post referred to General Rawat as a “mercenary of the fascists”
    • An FIR was lodged against the petitioner for the cognisable offences of provoking different groups, promoting enmity and intentional insult
    • A single-Judge of the High Court did not find that essential ingredients of the offences were fulfilled
    • The FIR was quashed with critical remarks on the petitioner’s conduct by the judge
  27. The Karkardooma Courts, Delhi decided to frame charges against Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Sharjeel Imam for sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and for offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Happy 73rd Republic Day

Legal Prudent Fraternity