Today’s Legal Updates

Wednesday, 25th May 2022



Article – 323A Administrative tribunals 

  1. Parliament may, by law, provide for the adjudication or trial by administrative tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any corporation owned or controlled by the Government.
  2. A law made under clause (1) may
    • (a) provide for the establishment of an administrative tribunal for the Union and a separate administrative tribunal for each State or for two or more States;
    • (b) specify the jurisdiction, powers (including the power to punish for contempt) and authority which may be exercised by each of the sai tribunals;
    • (c) provide for the procedure (including provisions as to limitation and rules of evidence) to be followed by the said tribunals;
    • (d) exclude the jurisdiction of all courts, except the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under article 136, with respect to the disputes on complaints referred to in clause (1);
    • (e) provide for the transfer to each such administrative tribunal of any cases pending before any court or other authority immediately before the establishment of such tribunal as would have been within the jurisdiction of such tribunal if the causes of action on which such suits or proceedings are based had arisen after such establishment;
    • (f) repeal or amend any order made by the President under clause (3) of article 371D;
    • (g) contain such supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions (including provisions as to fees) as Parliament may deem necessary for the effective functioning of, and for the speedy disposal of cases by, and the enforcement of the orders of, such tribunals
  3. The provisions of this article shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other provision of this Constitution or in any other law for the time being in force.

Today’s Legal Updates :-

  1. The District and Sessions Court Kollam, Kerala made some pertinent observations regarding the manner in which lives are shattered by the menace of dowry, while convicting and sentencing the husband of Vismaya, a 24-year-old Ayurveda student who died by suicide.  (State of Kerala v Kirankumar)
    • the Court said in its judgment, He was bound to protect his wife and he was capable to do that. However, he had chosen a different decision to taunt and harass his wife. His wife was also having dreams. She might have entered into the family life with good hope and great expectations. But the menace of dowry dashed all her aspirations. Wife is not a chattel in the hands of the husband. She has her own dignity and individuality.
    • Whilst her sufferings, once Vismaya had suspected: whether she is a valueless commodity? That bespeaks her miseries in the life. She thought, through her matrimony, she may not get a bright future, but she was forced to swallow the bitter pill. Ultimately, she embraced the decision of ending her life.
    • The Court also acknowledged the intense media scrutiny on the case and reiterated the sentiments expressed by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana when he said “Judges should not be swayed by the emotional pitch of public opinion… Judges will have to be mindful of the fact that, the noise thus amplified is not necessarily reflective of what is right and what the majority believes”.
  2. On Wednesday Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front chief Yasin Malik was sentenced to life imprisonment by a Special National Investigation Agency (NIA) judge Parveen Singh in a terror funding case. (NIA v. Yasin Malik)
    • Malik had pleaded guilty to the offences he was charged with in the matter, including that of waging war against the State under Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that can attract a maximum punishment of death penalty.
    • the Court noted, The net result of the judicial pronouncements is that death penalty should be awarded in exceptional cases where the crime by its nature shocks the collective consciousness of the society and has been committed with unmatched cruelty and in a gruesome manner.
    • In the present case, the manner in which the crime was committed was in the form of conspiracy whereby there was an attempted insurrection by instigating, stone pelting and arson and a very large scale violence led to shut of the government machinery and ultimate secession of J&K from UOI. However, the manner of the commission of crime, the kind of weaponry used in the crime lead me to a conclusion that the crime in question would fail the test of rarest of rare case as laid down by the Supreme Court.
    • Senior PP for NIA has tried to impress upon the court that while awarding sentence court should consider that the convict was responsible for the genocide of Kashmiri Pundits and their exodus. However, I find that as this issue is neither before this court, nor has been adjudicated upon and thus court cannot allow itself to be swayed by this argument.
    • In the present case, the order on charge specifies how funds were raised and how they were received from Pakistani establishment as well as designated terrorist Hafeez Saeed and through other hawala operations. It is these funds that were used to create unrest where under the guise of public protests, paid terror activities of stone pelting and arson at mass scale were committed. Had there been no such funding for the convict to conspire to commit these acts and to pay the perpetrators, the violence and mayhem at this scale could not have been committed.
  3. On Wednesday A Delhi Court said Yasin Malik cannot invoke Mahatma Gandhi because for Gandhi there was no place for violence while Malik’s political movement continued to be violent and he never condemned violence in the valley, while dismissing Malik’s claim that he had become a Gandhian after 1994. (NIA v. Yasin Malik)
    • It only took one small incident of violence at Chauri Chaura for the Mahatma to call off the entire non cooperation movement but the convict despite large scale of violence engulfing the valley neither condemned the violence nor withdrew his calendar of protests, which had led to the said violence.
    • The Court, on the contrary, noted, There was no reformation of this convict. It may be correct that the convict may have given up the gun in the year 1994, but he had never expressed any regret for the violence he had committed prior to the year 1994.
    • the judge opined, I must observe here that the convict cannot invoke the Mahatma and claim to be his follower because in Mahatma Gandhi’s principles, there was no place for violence, howsoever high the objective might be.
    • Betraying the good intentions of government he took a different path to orchestrate violence in the guise of political struggle. the evidence on the basis of which charges were framed and to which convict has pleaded guilty, speaks otherwise.
  4. On Wednesday the Allahabad High Court quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered against the founding editor of The Wire, Siddharth Varadarajan and its reporter Ismat Ara in connection with their reportage on the death of a protester during the farmers protests in Delhi.  (Siddharth Varadarajan And Another v State Of UP)
    • the Court said, The allegations made in the FIR does not disclose the commissioning of offences under Sections 153-B and 505 (2) IPC, therefore, it is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed.
    • the order, Nothing was also brought before this court to indicate that there was any disturbance or riot which may have any bearing on public disorder on account of the publication of news/tweet of the petitioners.
    • The issue arose when The Wire covered the death of a young man who suffered serious injuries during the farmers’ protests. The news item titled “Autopsy Doctor Told Me He’d Seen the Bullet Injury but Can Do Nothing as His Hands are Tied”, was authored by Ara and shared on the portal’s Twitter handle on January 29, 2021.
  5. On Wednesday the Delhi High Court has sought the response of the Central government and the Delhi government on a petition seeking constitution of a regulatory body to decide what constitutes a game of skill and which games can be categorised as betting or gambling.
  6. On Wednesday the Delhi High Court remarked while hearing the bail appeal filed by Umar Khalid in relation to the Delhi Riots case, that it cannot hold a mini-trial to test the veracity of a witness’ statement.
  7. On Wednesday Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front chief and Kashmiri separatist Yasin Malik was sentenced to life imprisonment by a Special National Investigation Agency (NIA) Court in Delhi in a terror funding case. (NIA v. Yasin Malik)
  8. On Wednesday A Thiruvananthapuram Magistrate Court in Kerala cancelled the bail granted to former Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) PC George in the case registered against him for making communal remarks.  (State of Kerala v PC George)
  9. On Wednesday the Supreme Court refused to grant early listing to a plea challenging the practice of Talaq-e-Hasan among Muslims.  (Benazeer Heena v. Union of India & Ors)
  10. On Wednesday the Allahabad High Court issued a contempt notice to an advocate for uttering “ugly and harsh words” in the court of the District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hardoi.  (State Of UP v. Sharad Kumar Gupta)
  11. On Tuesday the Delhi High Court sought the response of the Delhi government in a plea objecting to government officials interfering with the functioning of restaurants and bars serving liquor till 3 AM as per the new Excise Policy of 2021-22.  (National Restaurant Association of India & Anr v. Commissioner of Police & Anr)
  12. On Wednesday Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal quit the Congress party and filed his nomination papers to the Rajya Sabha as an independent candidate from Uttar Pradesh backed by the Samajwadi Party (SP), as per media reports.
  13. On Wednesday the Delhi High Court issued notice to Delhi government on a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking vaccination of stray dogs and animals against diseases like Canine parvovirus and Canine distemper.
    • the Court said, It appears that the stray dogs in the city are a neglected lot. It is necessary to look after the stray dogs not only as a measure of showing respect towards animal life but also because there will be a direct impact on human population in the city.
  14. On Wednesday the Chhattisgarh High Court while hearing a custody dispute held that the financial status of a parent or their ability to admit the child to a reputed school are not benchmarks for the happiness of the child.  (Nimish Agrawal v. Ruhi Agrawal)
    • the Court held, There is no exorbitant difference in between the income and apart from it, it is not that the income of the parent will bring the joy and smile to the face of the child. A child may be comfortable in a company of someone who may have a lower financial status it is always contrary to general expectation. It is not the measurement to be carried out while deciding the custody of the child.
    • the Bench said, It is not a tug of war between wealth and personality traits. Placement of the child in the best boarding school cannot be a benchmark for happiness of a child. A child may be happy in a regional local school in company of the parents instead of living in isolation in the hostel the domino effect may be otherwise. Consequently, we do not agree to proposition that child would get the better development if she is placed in the best school in India according to the father.
    • On attaining puberty she may be more frank with her mother and may need her support and the controlling consideration is only the welfare of the child should prevail. It is not the negative test that the father is not unfit or disqualified to have the custody but applying the positive test we are of the opinion that custody would be in the welfare of the minor would be much more with the mother.
    • A child being not a property or commodity and the issue relating to the custody of minor and tender aged children have to be handled with love, affection, sentiments and by applying human touch to the problem. Therefore, considering the same and as per the desire of the child, we deem it appropriate that the child would be better in the custody of her mother.
    • the Bench stated, The communication will help in maintaining and improving the bond between the child and the parent who is denied the custody. If that bond is maintained, the child will have no difficulty in moving from one home to another during vacations or holidays. The purpose (of visitation rights) as held by the top court is that the courts cannot provide one happy home with two parents to the child then let the child have the benefit of two happy homes with one parent each. The interests of the child are best served by ensuring that both the parents have a presence in his/her upbringing.
  15. On Wednesday the Kerala High Court directed the State Prosecution to file its response to the petition moved by the survivor-actress in the 2017 sexual assault case, alleging foul play in the investigation into the sensational case.  (xxx v State of Kerala)
  16. On Wednesday the Delhi High Court sought the response of the Central government in a public interest litigation (PIL) petition praying that the national song Vande Mataram be given the same status as the national anthem Jana Gana Mana.  (Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India and ors)
  17. On Wednesday Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, in an interview, said that the judgment of Delhi High Court’s Justice C Hari Shankar ruling against criminalising marital rape was highly misogynistic and very problematic.
  18. Last Week the Allahabad High Court underscored that incidents of mob violence spread disaffection in society, were incompatible with the rule of law and had no place in any civilized nation.  (Nawab v. State of Uttar Pradesh)
  19. On Wednesday the Supreme Court observed that while settling insurance claims, the insurance company should not be too technical and ask for the documents which the insured is not in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control.  (Gurmel Singh v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited)
  20. The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad refused to grant anticipatory bail to an advocate involved in filing multiple bogus claims for compensation in motor accident cases.  (Vijaydatta Patil vs State of Maharashtra)
  21. The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the lower court convicting five men of molesting and then murdering a woman.

Legal Prudent Fraternity