Today’s Legal Updates

Wednesday, 26th October 2022





Article – 170    Composition of the Legislative Assemblies.

  1. Subject to the provisions of article 333, the Legislative Assembly of each State shall consist of not more than five hundred, and not less than sixty, members chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies in the State.
  2. For the purposes of clause (1), each State shall be divided into territorial constituencies in such manner that the ratio between the population of each constituency and the number of seats allotted to it shall, so far as practicable, be the same throughout the State.
    [Explanation.—In this clause, the expression “population” means the population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published:
    • Provided that the reference in this Explanation to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published shall, until the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year [2026] have been published, be construed as a reference to the [2001] census.
  3. Upon the completion of each census, the total number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of each State and the division of each State into territorial constituencies shall be readjusted by such authority and in such manner as Parliament may by law determine:
    • Provided that such readjustment shall not affect representation in the Legislative Assembly until the dissolution of the then existing Assembly:
    • Provided further that such readjustment shall take effect from such date as the President may, by order, specify and until such readjustment takes effect, any election to the Legislative Assembly may be held on the basis of the territorial constituencies existing before such readjustment:
    • Provided also that until the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year [2026] have been published, it shall not be necessary to readjust—
      • (i) the total number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of each State as readjusted on the basis of the 1971 census; and
      • (ii) the division of such State into territorial constituencies as may be readjusted on the basis of the [2001] census, under this clause.

Today’s Legal Updates :-

  1. On Wednesday A consumer dispute forum in Maharashtra directed Uber India to pay ₹20,000 to a Mumbai lawyer who missed her flight on account of a delayed cab ride to the airport.
    • The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Thane observed that Uber was responsible for the defective service rendered to the complainant, Kavita Sharma, who is an advocate by profession. 
    • Considering the mental agony faced by Sharma for the delay in reaching the airport due to the negligence and careless behaviour of the Uber driver, the Commission directed that she be granted compensation to the tune of ₹10,000 as well as ₹10,000 in litigation costs.
    • She had booked a cab from her Dombivli residence at 3:29 pm to catch a 5:50 pm flight at the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport (CSMIA) located 36 kilometres away from her house. Taking into account the traffic, it was estimated that it would take her one hour to reach the airport. 
    • The Commission, however, concluded that the since the app was managed by Uber, all transactions and services were managed by the app. Sharma availed services by using the mobile application, and paid consideration to the app for using transportation services, not to the driver. Thus, it granted compensation to Sharma. 
  2. On Wednesday the Supreme Court deprecated the trend of High Courts granting anticipatory bail to accused persons on the ground that no custodial interrogation is required.
    • the Court said, There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail.
    • the investigating officer deserves free­hand to take the investigation to its logical conclusion. It goes without saying that appearance before the Investigating Officer who, has been prevented from subjecting Respondent No.1 to custodial interrogation, can hardly be fruitful to find out the prima facie substance in the allegations, which are of extreme serious in nature.
    • the Court said, When the facts of the case are noticed, it is revealed that the petitioner is the maternal uncle of the victim to whose house the victim went in December, 2021. On December 14, 2021, the victim is alleged to have been asked to sit on the lap of the petitioner, who thereafter is alleged to have hugged and kissed the victim on her cheeks. Though on the one side, there is a possibility of such hugs and kisses being manifestations of affection by an uncle, one cannot ignore the possibility of such show of ‘affections’ being coloured by sexual overtones. However, those are all matters for investigation.
    • The top court also clarified that, When the learned Judge decided the anticipatory bail application, the decision of the coordinate Bench in the case of Joy v. State of Kerala was binding to him. He could not have ignored a binding decision. It is a different thing to say that if he may disagree with the view taken and accordingly refer it to a larger Bench.
    • the Court added, Investigating Officer is granted liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. Suffice to say that law will take its own course.
  3. On Wednesday the News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) imposed a ₹50,000 fine on television channel News18 for violating principles relating to impartiality, neutrality, fairness and good taste while conducting a debate programme relating to the Karnataka Hijab case.
    • the order said, NBDSA observed that while having a debate as to whether wearing of Hijab be allowed in the schools or not, there was no occasion to blow up the debate by making it a communal issue.
    • NBDSA strongly deprecates the tendency of the broadcaster to associate those panelists who were in favour of wearing Hijab by students with Zawahiri and labelling them as ‘Zawahiri gang member’ ‘Zawahiri’s ambassador’ ‘Zawahiri is your God, you are his fan.
    • the court said order, However, in the instant case, not only had the anchor failed to stop the other panelists from crossing the boundary but had given a platform to express extreme views which could adversely affect the communal harmony in the country.
  4. The Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader and former Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh has approached the Bombay High Court seeking bail in the corruption case against him which is being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
    • the plea emphasized, While it may not be contended that the order granting bail in PMLA case would ipso facto bind the trial court to grant bail in the scheduled or predicate offence, the findings recorded in the order passed by the High Court could not have been brushed aside lightly.
    • the bail application urged, Both cases have an umbilical cord connection. Therefore, it cannot be countenanced that once bail is granted to the applicant in the PMLA case, he could still be kept incarcerated in the present case.
  5. On Wednesday the Madras High Court temporarily restrained digital payment app MobilePe and its group companies from offering Unified Payments Interface (UPI) and Bharat Interface for Money (BHIM) services following a trademark infringement suit filed by PhonePe.
    • The Court invoked a previous judgment of the Supreme Court in Parle Products (P) Ltd v. JP and Co to say that it will avoid a side-by-side comparison of the two brands. Instead, it said that if one were to step into the shoes of a common man with “average intelligence,” one would realise the similarities in the logos of PhonePe and MobilePe.
    • the order, “This Commercial Division compared the two marks by applying the Parle principle being ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, i.e., avoiding side by side comparison, stepping into the shoes of a man of average intelligence with ordinary prudence and imperfect recollection. A prima facie case qua possible deception has been made out.
    • the order stated, Therefore, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable legal injury parameters have impelled this Commercial Division to grant this limited order of status quo as of today. For the purpose of specificity, it is made clear that the defendants 1 to 6 can continue with all other business activities which they are carrying on as of today with the aforementioned competing marks which can be broadly referred to as wallet recharge unhindered by this interim order of status quo.
  6. On Wednesday the Delhi High Court passed an interim order restraining the makers of ‘NIC Natural Ice Creams’ from using the trademarks ‘NATURALS’ after the famous ice cream brand Natural Ice Cream filed a suit for trademark infringement.  (Siddhant Ice Creams LLP & Ors. vs. Ameet Pahilani & Ors)
    • the Court said, Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, Defendants No. 1 to 3 along with their subordinates, subsidiaries, officers, directors, family members, distributors, agents, franchisees, dealers, servants, and all other persons claiming through or under them or anyone who may be acting for and on their behalf, are restrained from using Plaintiffs’ marks ‘NATURAL’, ‘NATURALS’ or using ‘NIC Natural Ice Creams’, ‘NIC’, in any form or manner, including any marks identical or deceptively similar, or from adopting same colours, trade dress and packaging for their products so as to amount to passing off.
  7. Last Week the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court quashed and set aside a first information report (FIR) against an accused after discovering there was a prior ongoing civil dispute between the complainant and accused in the FIR.  (Ramesh Karale v. State of Maharashtra)
    • the Court held, His name is inserted in the FIR without attributing any overt act to him. Taking into account above facts, when there is no material against him, in our opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings against such applicant would amount to sheer abuse of process of law.
    • It is clear that there is history of civil dispute between the complainant and accused nos. 1 and 2. It is to be borne in mind that present applicant is not in close relation with either complainant or other accused. It would not be desirable to allow prosecution to be continued as against the present applicant-accused no.4,” the Court held and quashed the FIR limited to the present applicant.
  8. Last Week the Supreme Court was quashed the conviction a person for food adulteration on the ground that moisture content in the paneer sold by him exceeded the prescribed limit of 70 percent.
    • the apex court said, There was no whisper in the complaint or in the evidence as to whether the case would fall under the proviso. For instance, the report of the public analyst says that the moisture content was 77.6% and that as per the prescribed standard, it shall not contain more than 70%. But there is no indication as to whether the moisture content was more due to natural causes. Even, the milk fat content of the dry matter may depend upon the quality of the milk and this question was also not gone into.
    • the public analyst submitted, The sample of paneer does not conform to the prescribed standard in respect of moisture and milk fat content of the dry matter. Hence, it is highly adulterate.
    • the Court ordered, Therefore, we are of the view that a petty shop owner has been prosecuted by making much ado about nothing.   Hence, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the High Court confirming the order of the Sessions Court and the order of the Magistrate are set aside.
  9. The Uttarakhand High Court created a dedicated email id which would be personally monitored by the High Court’s Registrar (Judicial), In order to enable citizens to lodge their complaints regarding problems arising out of solid waste management by authorities.  (Jitender Yadav vs Union of India)
    • the bench ordered, Along with the complaint, the complainant should also upload the photographs to show the collection or non-disposal of solid waste, clearly identifying its location. The complainant should clearly provide his/her identity and contact details. The complaints, which are received shall be perused by the Registrar (Judicial) after 05:00 P.M. every day. These complaints shall be printed out, provided they relate to issues regarding solid waste in the State, and not otherwise.
      • email id –
    • the bench said, What we find from the various affidavits filed before us is that the various authorities, including the State Level Monitoring Committee, have been issuing paper directions to authorities subordinate to them, particularly to the Urban Local Bodies, and the District Magistrates. However, there is no monitoring of the directions being issued, let to find out whether they are being implemented.
    • the bench observed, It is necessary that the higher authorities monitor the implementation of the directions issued by them, by calling for actual reports, and by undertaking site visits and ground surveys. However, that does not appear to have been resorted to at all. The issues we are confronted with cannot be resolved merely by sitting in a closed office room.

Notes: – Due to Diwali and other festival many High Court and Subordinate Court are Close.

Legal Prudent Fraternity