Today’s Legal Updates

Friday, 29th April 2022



Article – 302 Power of Parliament to impose restrictions on trade, commerce and intercourse

Parliament may by law impose such restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse between one State and another or within any part of the territory of India as may be required in the public interest.

Today’s Legal Updates :-

  1. On Friday the Supreme Court declined to allow urgent listing of the plea to declare virtual court hearing as a fundamental right.
    • There are at least two petitions seeking virtual hearing as a matter of right.
      • The plea filed by All India Jurists Association, a body of more than 5,000 lawyers across the country, and journalist Sparsh Upadhyay of Livelaw has sought a declaration that right to participate in court proceedings through virtual courts via video conference is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and (g) of the Constitution.
      • Another plea filed by National Federation of Societies for Fast Justice through advocate Mrigank Prabhakar also sought a directive to the High Courts to refrain from discontinuing with the option of video conference and virtual court hearings without the permission of the Supreme Court’s e-committee.
    • Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra said on behalf of one of the petitioners, The numbers are rising COVID cases now and this plea needs to be listed. We need hybrid hearing.
    • the bench said, Hybrid means we will not have pleasure to see Mr Luthra in court. There is no urgency. All people are coming to court. If situation worsens we will see.
    • Advocate Siddharth R Gupta said, Please take this up milord. Some High Courts are allowing it, some are not. There needs to be a national, uniform policy on hybrid hearings. Please list it.
  2. On Friday Morning the Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana inaugurated the 39th Chief Justices’ Conference while highlighting that the conclusions and resolutions drawn up at the conference will be taken up with the government at the Joint Conference with the Chief Ministers tomorrow in an attempt to arrive at a consensus.
    • The CJI, in his welcome address, highlighted six agenda items for the conference. These included strengthening of the IT infrastructure, human resource requirements in district courts, creating state-of-the-art judicial infrastructure, appointment of judges, and emoluments of judges.
    • the CJI said, Due to our collective efforts, we could fill 126 vacancies in various High Courts, in less than an year. We are expecting 50 more appointments.
    • Administratively, it was a big challenge. We had to struggle to take care of colleagues, officers and staff of registries, advocates and litigants.
    • I congratulate all of you for contributing to the humanitarian efforts in your own way.
  3. On Friday A 22-year-old youth who spent six years in detention centre after he was accused of illegally entering India from Bangladesh, was ordered to be released by the Gauhati High Court after the boy’s mother moved the High Court claiming that her son, an Indian, was suffering from schizophrenia and had run away from home. (Nilima Bose v The State of Assam)
  4. On Friday the Chhattisgarh High Court, while denying maintenance to a wife and daughter, held that the law presumes in favour of marriage and is against concubinage. (Jaanki Yadav v. Gorakhnath Yadav)
    • the judgment said, he law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage, when a man and a woman was cohabit continuously for a number of years but the evidence would show that the applicant only remained for few months, therefore, the said presumption of marriage also cannot be drawn.
    • the Court held, It is not a case that parties lived together for several years in the same house and children were born out of their wedlock. There is no evidence on record that the husband, recognise, his wife and children by affectionate provisions.
    • the Bench stated, The daughter though is in hold of acknowledgment of his paternity which normally in turn attaches legitimacy of marriage but in order to establish the legitimacy of child, the marriage was required to be proved.
  5. On Friday a Delhi Court has prima facie found a case of copyright infringement in a legal battle over the works of late Parikrama band member and musician Sonam Sherpa allegedly being used in a movie without consent. (Dina Ramliani Ralte v. Shenpenn Khymsar & Anr)
  6. On Friday the Delhi High Court has directed the Central government to pay a compensation of ₹15 lakh plus 8% interest per annum to the sole survivor of the encounter after twenty-five years three men were shot at by Delhi Police in Connaught Place.  (Tarun Preet Singh v Union of India and Anr)
    • Justice Singh has said, The trauma is not limited to the individual but also to his near and dear ones, who have rendered physical, mental and emotional support to the Petitioner, which may include his parents, spouse and now, his children… While the disability can be characterized as being not a major disability, the fact that he has not been able to lead a normal life for the last 25 years cannot be ignored. For a young boy of 20 years of age suffering of any kind of disability due to no fault of his cannot be justified or trivialized.
    • the Court said, He has two children for whom he needs to cater in terms of education and marriage. The fact that other two friends passed away but the Petitioner was merely injured cannot result in different standards being applied, inasmuch as even in the case of Petitioner, who is alive, he has lost the prime of his life. He is working in a cloth shop, has two children and a family to take care of. The time that has gone by also cannot be compensated for him.
    • Accordingly, keeping in mind inflation rates, a sum of ₹15 lakh is awarded as compensation, which shall be paid along with simple interest @ 8% per annum, from the date of incident till the date of payment.
  7. On Friday the Mumbai Police told a Sessions Court the Hanuman Chalisa row allegedly orchestrated by Member of Parliament (MP) Navneet Rana and Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Ravi Rana was a ploy to plead collapse of law and order in Maharashtra and, thereby, dissolve the Maha Vikas Aghadi government.
    • the Mumbai Police affidavit said, The plan to read “Hanuman Chalisa” at the private residence of the Hon ‘ble Chief Minister at Matoshree bunglow is big plot to create a challenge to the law and order situation and to the maintenance of law and order by the Government established by the rule of law to such an extent that the collapse of law and order can be pleaded and the recommendation can be made for dissolution of the present government by the Governor of Maharashtra.
    • One cannot give a threat of challenge to the government that he or she wants to act against the procedure established by law and further challenge to the government or further incitement or instigation to the persons of diversified thinking to the effect that he or she wants to do the same and let the government or such persons to whom challenge is given should dare to stop such act even when the same is under the guise or veil of a chanting of religious book.
    • The words by the accused persons are clearly with an intention to bring hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the government, and with an instigation to the citizens to attempt otherwise then by lawful means, to raise discontent and disaffection amongst citizens against government to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of citizens.
  8. On Friday the Bombay High Court stayed a Look-out Circular (LOC) issued against a “wilful defaulter” to enable him to fly to the United States of America to attend his son’s convocation ceremony. (Manappadom Subramaniam vs Bureau of Immigration)
    • the order said, The LOC in question will not come in the way of the applicant to travel overseas to USA from April 22, 2022 to July 18, 2022. The Immigration Authorities at the Airport will permit the applicant to pass through immigration and to board his flight, irrespective of whether, the immigration system has been updated and the Respondent banks have informed the immigration authorities or not.
  9. On Friday the hearing in a case before the Supreme Court relating to cab aggregators was privy to an episode of camaraderie between the Bar and the Bench, with a judge thanking a Senior Advocate for highlighting a potential conflict of interest.  (Meru Travels Solutions Private Limited v. Competition Commission of India)
  10. On Wednesday the Central government notified the appointment of Justice Satyen Vaidya, additional judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court as a permanent judge.
  11. On Wednesday the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that mere involvement of an accused in other cases cannot be the sole basis to deny bail to a person and keep him confined in perpetuity. (Vipul v State of Haryana)
    • the Court said, The case for bail has to be considered on its own merits . Even though the antecedents of an accused may be one among the relevant considerations while adjudicating a petition on merits for grant of bail, however, a mere involvement of the petitioner in other cases cannot be the sole basis to keep him confined in perpetuity.
  12. On Friday the Delhi High Court said that it would hear the bail appeals filed by Delhi Riots accused Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid together.
  13. On Friday three more accused in the Bhima Koregaon case have approached the Special Court under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act seeking discharge from all charges against them in the 2018 case.
  14. On Friday the Delhi High Court refused to initiate civil contempt of court proceedings against a husband, who refused to pay salary to the nanny appointed to look after his only son, who is presently in the custody of his estranged wife.  (Kinri Dhir vs Veer Singh)
    • Justice Prasad noted, A perusal of the income and expenditure affidavit shows that the husband was spending ₹8,90,947 per month for the purpose of maintaining the wife and the minor son. It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that the husband was residing with the wife at the time when the income and expenditure affidavit had been filed. Subsequent to the filing of the income and expenditure affidavit, he shifted out from the said premises. However, the expenditure has not been reduced despite the fact that he has moved out from the premises……It has been submitted he has been paying a sum of ₹4.5 lakhs towards the rent of the serviced apartment. He is also paying a sum of ₹1,30,937 per month towards the payment for the housekeeper and cook’s room rent, and ₹76,744 per month for the payment of the salary of the housekeeper and the cook.
    • the judge held, In wake of the changed circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that a sum of ₹80,000 is highly excessive for a nanny who has been employed to take care of a child.

Legal Prudent Fraternity