Today’s Legal Updates

Thursday, 26th October 2022





Article – 171 Composition of the Legislative Councils.

  1. The total number of members in the Legislative Council of a State having such a Council shall not exceed [one-third] of the total number of members in the Legislative Assembly of that State:
    • Provided that the total number of members in the Legislative Council of a State shall in no case be less than forty.
  2. Until Parliament by law otherwise provides, the composition of the Legislative Council of a State shall be as provided in clause (3).
  3. Of the total number of members of the Legislative Council of a State—
    • (a) as nearly as may be, one-third shall be elected by electorates consisting of members of municipalities, district boards and such other local authorities in the State as Parliament may by law specify;
    • (b) as nearly as may be, one-twelfth shall be elected by electorates consisting of persons residing in the State who have been for at least three years graduates of any university in the territory of India or have been for at least three years in possession of qualifications prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament as equivalent to that of a graduate of any such university;
    • (c) as nearly as may be, one-twelfth shall be elected by electorates consisting of persons who have been for at least three years engaged in teaching in such educational institutions within the State, not lower in standard than that of a secondary school, as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament;
    • (d) as nearly as may be, one-third shall be elected by the members of the Legislative Assembly of the State from amongst persons who are not members of the Assembly;
    • (e) the remainder shall be nominated by the Governor in accordance with the provisions of clause (5).
  4. The members to be elected under sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (3) shall be chosen in such territorial constituencies as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament, and the elections under the said sub-clauses and under sub-clause (d) of the said clause shall be held in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote.
  5. The members to be nominated by the Governor under sub-clause (e) of clause (3) shall consist of persons having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of such matters as the following, namely:—
    • Literature, science, art, co-operative movement and social service.

Today’s Legal Updates :-

  1. On Thursday the Delhi High Court permanently restrained a wholesale trader from manufacturing or selling knock-offs of the products of apparel and footwear company Woodland.  (Aero Club v. Bhawna Trading Co & Anr)
    • Accordingly, the Defendant No.1, and all others acting for or on its behalf, are permanently restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale any products under the word mark “WOODLAND”, the “WOODLAND” label, the “WOODLAND” tree device mark, or any other mark which is deceptively/confusingly similar to the Plaintiff‟s mark “WOODLAND”.
    • considering the quantum of infringing products which was seized by the Local Commissioner, as also, the costs which have been incurred by the Plaintiff in the present proceedings, including the court fee, the fee of the Local Commissioner, litigation costs, etc., the Defendant No.1 shall pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to the Plaintiff.
  2. On Thursday the Bombay High Court quashed a criminal case registered against a 9-year-old boy for unintentionally colliding with a woman while cycling.  (AK vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors)
    • the Court stated, This action of the police i.e. of registration of FIR, has resulted in traumatizing a 9 year old boy. Despite Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code, the police have proceeded to register the FIR as against the petitioner’s son, a minor aged 9 years, at the behest of the respondent No.3. The action reflects complete non-application of mind by the concerned officer whilst registering the offence.
    • it added, It appears that even before investigation, `C’ Summary report was filed by the police in the said case, however, much damage was done to the boy aged 9 years, by the allegations made against him and the publicity given to the said case.
  3. On Thursday the Kerala High Court came down upon the State government and political leaders for their inaction and silence resulting in large scale encroachment of land by religious institutions and land mafia.  (Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v State of Kerala)
    • the Court said in order, The fact that nobody has taken up the issue so far and I would say nobody would have the effrontery to take up the issue against such organized encroachers, would show the existence of an invisible conducive atmosphere favourable to the organized encroachers/land mafia and the upper hand they enjoyed without challenge from any corner. This reprehensible inaction on the part of Government, political leaders and the society at large has given leverage to such massive assaults over the large tracts of properties all over Kerala by some religious/charitable institution/organization added by the fact that it is quite easy for them to obtain pattayam under the bargain of vote bank they possessed.
    • the order said, This has given immense wealth and authority to religious institution to dominate the will of Government machineries and it is injurious to our democratic system and the principle of equality and liberty guaranteed under the Constitution. This would speak volumes of the manner in which the person or the group of persons have trampled over the will of general public and the officials under the Government.
    • the Court said, All these would prima facie show that by giving a religious name or under the guise of charity, any person or group of persons can acquire the property without the liability to account for it or its utilization. As it has become the usual practice in the State of Kerala, it warrants that these large scale malpractices which are rampant in our State has to fall under judicial scrutiny more rigorously hereafter.
    • the order stated, Necessarily, the State Government is duty bound to take over all property of bona vacantia and to preserve it, remove all sorts of encroachment over the Government land, to scrutinize the validity of pattayam, if any obtained under the garb of Land Assignment Act by misusing its provisions and to conduct a survey in order to find out such incident all over Kerala, for which, the State Government shall constitute a State wise high power body for its implementation and to supervise the survey besides formation of District level body headed by the respective District Collector and revenue head of each district and the Tahsildar. The assistance of forest officials can also be obtained whenever it is found necessary.
  4. On Thursday the Kerala High Court said Religious and charitable institutions are accumulating of wealth and property under the guise of charity and a strong central legislation applicable across the country is required to regulate the activities of such institutions.
    • the Court observed in order, Now the term ‘charity’ is largely used to accumulate wealth and property under that guise and to give away the same without accounting the same to any responsible authority. Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India guarantees the right of all citizen to form association or union, but that does not mean that it should be without any legal status or legal recognition, when involves acquisition and accumulation of large quantity of wealth and assets under the guise of charity.
    • the Court noted, This would show the unavoidable necessity for a central legislation in order to regulate charitable organizations and its working.
    • the order stated, I may also request the Central Government to explore the possibility of a uniform central legislation to regulate the functioning of charitable organization/institution and religious institutions listed in entry No.28 of concurrent list of VIIth schedule of the Constitution of India including the constitution of a centralized body to address the issues pertaining to the income, expenditure, acquisition and disposal of assets of such bodies. The possibility of constitution of a centralized force/body for that purpose may be explored by the Central Government.
  5. On Thursday Johnson & Johnson Private Limited has approached the Bombay High Court challenging the cancellation of cosmetic manufacturing license of its baby powder facility in Maharashtra.
    • The petition filed through Nishith Desai advocates pointed out that the Joint Commissioner & Licensing Authority, Food and Drug Administration, Maharashtra issued an order on September 15 cancelling the company’s license, effective from December 15, 2022.
    • n appeal was filed before the Minister of FDA which was rejected on October 19. The Minister also refused to stay the effect of the commissioner’s order. 
    • Since there was no statutory appeal available before the company, it approached the High Court through a writ petition. 
  6. On Thursday the Madras High Court remarked that the two First Information Reports (FIRs) against former minister and AIADMK member SP Velumani might have been registered out of mala fide intentions.
  7. On Thursday Twitter argued before the Karnataka High Court that blocking orders issued by the Central government must contain reasons that are communicated to users of the social media platform.
    • the single-judge said while recording the submissions, Senior Advocate Haranahalli submits that there is no difference between a reasoned/speaking order. Both need to contain reasons. So that aggrieved can decide whether challenge to be made or not.
    • To say, ‘I will not record reasons and communicate’ will go against the safeguard itself. It is provided so persons affected can go to court and challenge.
    •  petition filed before the High Court, Twitter has contended that account-level blocking is a disproportionate measure and violates the rights of users under the Constitution. Out of a total of 1,474 accounts and 175 tweets, Twitter has challenged the blocking of only 39 URLs.
    • it has been submitted, hey fail to comply with the procedures and safeguards prescribed by the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (Blocking Rules).
  8. On Wednesday the Kerala High Court opined that the pressure mounted by the public and amplified by the media cannot be allowed to sway the legal system in with sensationalized cases.  (Kiran Kumar v. State of Kerala)
  9. On Thursday A special MP/MLA court in Rampur in Uttar Pradesh (UP) convicted and sentenced Samajwadi Party leader and Member of Legislative Assembly Azam Khan to three years in jail in a hate speech case filed against him over comments against UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in 2019.
  10. On Thursday A vacation bench of Bombay High Court quashed an order of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) refusing permission to a registered society headed by a Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader Rakhee Jadhav to hold Chhath Puja at a Mumbai ground.  (Durga Parmeshwari Seva Mandal & Ors v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.)
  11. On Thursday the Madras High Court said that neither of the two factions of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) – one led by O Panneerselvam (OPS) and the other by Edappadi K Palaniswami (EPS) – can access the gold armour that the party uses each year to adorn the statute of late socialist Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar to commemorate his birth anniversary.  (AIADMK v. The Branch Manager)
  12. On Thursday the Bombay High Court held Killing a sleeping person hours after picking a fight with him, will fall under the ambit of the graver offence of murder under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and not the lesser offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.  (Mittu @ Mithu Bholi Pareda)
    • the bench held in its order passed on 27th September, We find that the deceased was not assaulted in the heat of passion; that the assault took place much after the quarrel between the Appellant and the deceased; that the Appellant assaulted him when he was asleep; that there was an assault with force on the head, chest and neck of the deceased which was sufficient to cause death; and, that there was no grave and sudden provocation to justify the reduction of the offence. In our opinion, the facts of the case do not warrant reduction of the offence from Section 302 to 304 Part-II.
    • the bench noted, The motive for the offence i.e. taking of the mobile phone by the appellant and keeping it in the cabin of the truck is clearly proved through the evidence on record and the seizure panchanama shows recovery of the mobile phone from the cabin of the truck.
  13. On Thursday the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court opined that if a married lady is asked to do household work for family, the same cannot be equated to the work of maid servant, and would not amount to cruelty towards her.  (Sarang Diwakar Amle & Ors. v. State of Maharasthtra & Anr.)
  14. On Thursday Former BJP Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament (MP) Subramanian Swamy has moved Delhi High Court against Central Government’s failure to provide security at his private accommodation..
  15. Last Week the Supreme Court rejected a plea by Union Minister Ajay Mishra Teni seeking transfer of Uttar Pradesh government’s appeal against his acquittal in a murder case, from the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court to the principal Bench of the High Court at Prayagraj.  (Rajeev Gupta vs State of Uttar Pradesh)
  16. On Thursday the Delhi High Court restrained, a business news website owned by the Nine Network Group, from publishing and disseminating false and misleading articles about hospitality startup OYO.  (Oravel Stays Ltd v. Nine Network Pvt Ltd & Ors)
  17. Last Week the Supreme Court set aside the appointment of Dr. Rajasree MS as Vice-Chancellor (VC) of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University in Kerala’s Thiruvananthapuram.  (Professor (Dr) Sreejith PS v Dr Rajasree MS & Ors)
  18. On Thursday the Madras High Court held that acquittal of a person in a criminal case cannot be a ground for exoneration in independent departmental inquiry initiated by the employer against such person since the procedures and standard of proof adopted in a departmental inquiry are different from those followed in a criminal court of law.  (Paramasivam vs The Director General of Police and Ors)

Legal Updates Fraternity