Monday, 29th January 2024

The Constitution is not a mere Lawyers Document, it is a Vehicle of Life, and its Spirit is always the Spirit of Age.

Notes: – UN predicts groundwater level in India will reduce to ‘low’ by 2025.’

Legal Awareness: – CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Part – XIX MISCELLANEOUS

Article – 366 Definitions

In this Constitution, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say—

  1. Agricultural income” means agricultural income as defined for the purposes of the enactments relating to Indian income-tax.
  2. an Anglo-Indian” means a person whose father or any of whose other male progenitors in the male line is or was of European descent but who is domiciled within the territory of India and is or was born within such territory of parents habitually resident therein and not established there for temporary purposes only.
  3. article” means an article of this Constitution.
  4. borrow” includes the raising of money by the grant of annuities, and “loan” shall be construed accordingly.
  5. clause” means a clause of the article in which the expression occurs.
  6. Corporation tax” means any tax on income, so far as that tax is payable by companies and is a tax in the case of which the following conditions are fulfilled: —
    1. that it is not chargeable in respect of agricultural income.
    2. that no deduction in respect of the tax paid by companies is, by any enactments which may apply to the tax, authorised to be made from dividends payable by the companies to individuals.
    3. that no provision exists for taking the tax so paid into account in computing for the purposes of Indian income-tax the total income of individuals receiving such dividends, or in computing the Indian income-tax payable by, or refundable to, such individuals.
  7. Corresponding Province”, “corresponding Indian State” or “corresponding State” means in cases of doubt such Province, Indian State or State as may be determined by the President to be the corresponding Province, the corresponding Indian State or the corresponding State, as the case may be, for the particular purpose in question.
  8. debt” includes any liability in respect of any obligation to repay capital sums by way of annuities and any liability under any guarantee, and “debt charges” shall be construed accordingly.
  9. Estate duty” means a duty to be assessed on or by reference to the principal value, ascertained in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed by or under laws made by Parliament or the Legislature of a State relating to the duty, of all property passing upon death or deemed, under the provisions of the said laws, so to pass.
  10. Existing law” means any law, Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule or regulation passed or made before the commencement of this Constitution by any Legislature, authority or person having power to make such a law, Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule or regulation.
  11. Federal Court” means the Federal Court constituted under the Government of India Act, 1935.
  12. goods” includes all materials, commodities, and articles.
  13. guarantee” includes any obligation undertaken before the commencement of this Constitution to make payments in the event of the profits of an undertaking falling short of a specified amount.
  14. High Court” means any Court which is deemed for the purposes of this Constitution to be a High Court for any State and includes— (a) any Court in the territory of India constituted or reconstituted under this Constitution as a High Court, and (b) any other Court in the territory of India which may be declared by Parliament by law to be a High Court for all or any of the purposes of this Constitution.
  15. Indian State” means any territory which the Government of the Dominion of India recognised as such a State.
  16. Part” means a Part of this Constitution.
  17. pension” means a pension, whether contributory or not, of any kind whatsoever payable to or in respect of any person, and includes retired pay so payable; a gratuity so payable and any sum or sums so payable by way of the return, with or without interest thereon or any other addition thereto, of subscriptions to a provident fund.
  18. Proclamation of Emergency” means a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 352;
  19. Public notification” means a notification in the Gazette of India, or, as the case may be, the Official
  20. Gazette of a State.
  21. railway” does not include—
    1. a tramway wholly within a municipal area, or
    2. any other line of communication wholly situate in one State and declared by Parliament by law not to be a railway.
  22. Ruler” means the Prince, Chief or other person who, at any time before the commencement of the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, was recognised by the President as the Ruler of an Indian State or any person who, at any time before such commencement, was recognised by the President as the successor of such Ruler.
  23. Schedule” means a Schedule to this Constitution.
  24. Scheduled Castes” means such castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within such castes, races or tribes as are deemed under article 341 to be Scheduled Castes for the purposes of this Constitution.
  25. Scheduled Tribes” means such tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within such tribes or tribal communities as are deemed under article 342 to be Scheduled Tribes for the purposes of this Constitution.
  26. securities” includes stock.
  27. sub-clause” means a sub-clause of the clause in which the expression occurs.
  28. taxation” includes the imposition of any tax or impost, whether general or local or special, and “tax” shall be construed accordingly.
  29. tax on income” includes a tax in the nature of an excess profits tax.
    • (29A) “tax on the sale or purchase of goods” includes—
      1. a tax on the transfer, otherwise than in pursuance of a contract, of property in any goods for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration;
      2. a tax on the transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract;
      3. a tax on the delivery of goods on hirepurchase or any system of payment by instalments.
      4. a tax on the transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration;
      5. a tax on the supply of goods by any unincorporated association or body of persons to a member thereof for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration;
      6. a tax on the supply, by way of or as part of any service or in any other manner whatsoever, of goods, being food or any other article for human consumption or any drink (whether or not intoxicating), where such supply or service, is for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration, and such transfer, delivery or supply of any goods shall be deemed to be a sale of those goods by the person making the transfer, delivery or supply and a purchase of those goods by the person to whom such transfer, delivery or supply is made;]
  30. Union territory” means any Union territory specified in the First Schedule and includes any other territory comprised within the territory of India but not specified in that Schedule.

Today’s Legal Updates: 

  1. On Monday the Supreme Court quashed criminal defamation proceedings filed by a lawyer against the owner of a Madhya Pradesh-based Hindi daily newspaper, Sunday Blast.  (Sanjay Upadhya vs Anand Dubey)
    • a bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta observed that the article in question would be covered under free speech rights.
    • the Court said, The news article in question was published in good faith and in exercise of the Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
    • The matter concerned a February 2013 news article with the headline: “Advocate ne pan masala vyavasayi par karaya jhuta mamla darj” (“Advocate files false case against pan masala trader”).
    • the court said, The learned Magistrate in its order referred to the Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and held that the publication in question did not warrant prosecution of the accused-appellant … We are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Magistrate cannot be termed to be illegal or unjustified.
  2. On Monday the Supreme Court sought a report from the Registrar General of the Madras High Court about how the High Court went about its suo motu proceedings to restore a corruption case against Tamil Nadu Minister KKSSR Ramachandran. (Thiru KKSSR Ramachandran vs. State Rep by Additional Superintendent of Police and ors)
    • A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra asked the High Court Registrar General to file the same by 5thFebruary.
    • The report has to specify the jurisdiction of single-judge Justice Anand Venkatesh who had passed a series of suo motu revision orders to restore corruption cases against six sitting and former Tamil Nadu ministers including KKSSR Ramachandran.
    • The issue arose after the Madras High Court, in August last year, initiated suo motu revision proceedings to question the correctness of special court orders that had discharged two Tamil Nadu ministers in disproportionate assets cases.
    • The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) had initially registered a case against Ramachandran, his wife and a friend of the Minister under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) on December 20, 2011. The DVAC claimed that they were in possession of ₹44.59 lakh disproportionate to their known sources of income during the period between April 1, 2006, and March 31, 2010.
    • Justice Venkatesh passed his suo motu revision orders and observed that the approach of the special court was “ex-facie illegal” and that it had no power to discharge the accused without assigning any reason.
    • He added that the special court had failed to give an independent reasoning in the order of discharge and was “literally playing the role of lady justice by blindfolding itself.”
  3. On Monday the Supreme Court transferred all proceedings concerning the case from the High Court to the top court, in view of the rift that emerged between two sitting judges of the Calcutta High Court over the case relating to caste certificate scam. (In Re: Orders of Calcutta High Court dated 24.01.2024 and 25.01.2024 and Ancillary Issues)
    • A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud with Justices Sanjiv KhannaBR GavaiSurya Kant, and Aniruddha Bose passed the order in a suo motu case.
    • The suo motu case was initiated after Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay of the Calcutta High Court passed a bizarre order to “ignore” a stay order passed by a division bench headed by Justice Soumen Sen.
    • CJI Chandrachud said, Casting aspersions on single judge or division bench would not be proper. Anything we say will have effect on impinging the dignity of the high court. we will handle it in some way.
    • the court said, We will transfer the proceedings in the writ petition and the letters patent appeal to the Supreme Court. We will list it after a while and deal with it. … The plea under Article 226 and letters patent appeal to be transferred to this court. Let pleadings be completed meanwhile.
    • Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal submitted, Justice Gangopadhyay is continuing to take such matters.. He will continue doing the same thing.
    • the CJI added, There is a Chief justice of the High Court who is allocating cases. Let us not arrogate his powers.
  4. On Monday the Gujarat High Court refused to entertain a plea filed by Narayan Sai for temporary bail to look after his ailing father, Asaram Bapu who is also jailed after his conviction in a rape case.  (Naryan @ Narayan Sai @ Mota Bhagwan vs State of Gujarat)
    • A division bench of Justices AS Supehia and Vimal Vyas noted the “past history” of Sai, wherein he was fined ₹ 1 lakh for submitting forged medical documents in the High Court. 
    • the bench said, How can we repose faith in you when you already have forged documents earlier. In your instant application, you have said he (Asaram Bapu) is in critical condition but show us from records that he is in a critical condition, because the medical papers do no state that he is critical. He is being treated in AIIMS. We aren’t entertained and we aren’t convinced.
    • Justice Supehia underlined, It has to be in black and white that he is in a critical condition.
    • Justice Supehia remarked, But he has daughters. And I can say, daughters are more care taking than a son. So don’t worry.
    • The bench, however, refused to accept the same stating, “We cannot accept documents over the counter like this. We will have to ask the other side to verify the same.”
    • Justice Supehia said, Looking to your history (wherein you sought interim bail on basis of forged documents), we do not trust you. You have lost the trust of this court. We aren’t convinced and won’t entertain this instant application.
  5. On Monday lawyer Om Kumar Sharma was found dead in Saket Court complex parking night after he allegedly jumped from the lawyers’ chamber.
    • The police said that the incident prima facie looks like a suicide and a note has also been found.
  6. On Monday the Delhi High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the provisions related to anti-profiteering under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and the establishment of National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA).  (Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited v Union of India Through: Its Secretary & Ors + Connected Matters)
    • A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma upheld Section 171 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) as well as Rules 122, 124, 126, 127, 129, 133 and 134 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (CGST Rules).
    • the Court held, Section 171 of the Act, 2017 does not violate Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, as it is not a price-fixing mechanism As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Respondents, Section 171 of the Act, 2017 only relates to the indirect-tax component of the price of goods and services and does not impinge upon the freedom of suppliers to fix their own prices keeping in view relevant commercial and economic factors. This Court is in agreement with the learned Amicus Curiae that Section 171 of the Act, 2017 is solely focused on ensuring that the consequential benefit of reduction of the rate of tax by the Government reaches the recipient.
    • the bench ruled, What will be struck down in such cases will not be the provision itself which invests such power on the concerned authority but the erroneous application of the power.
    • the Court also dealt with grounds raised by the petitioner companies. The Bench’s findings and conclusions on these issues are given below.
      • No fixed/uniform method or mathematical formula can be laid down for determining profiteering.
      • It is the prerogative of the legislature to decide how the benefit is to be passed on to the consumers.
      • CGST Act 2017 rightly does not fix a time period during which price-reduction has to be offered.
      • Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act is not applicable to the obligation under Section 171.
      • A statutory provision [Section 171 CGST Act] cannot be struck down on the ground of possibility of abuse.
      • To not compare taxes levied after the introduction of the CGST Act, 2017 with a basket of distinct indirect taxes applicable before the operation of this Act would go against its intent and objective.
      • There is no vested right of appeal and an appeal is a creature of the statute. If the legislature has chosen not to provide for a right to appeal against an order of the NAA, that itself cannot be a ground to declare an enactment as unconstitutional. In any case, the decisions of NAA are subject to judicial review.
      • There is no requirement of judicial member in NAA.
      • Rule 124 of the CGST Rules which deals with appointment, salary and other terms and conditions of service of the chairman and members of the NAA is in consonance with Article 50 [separation of judiciary from executive]. There is no scope for governmental interference in functions exercised by NAA.
      • Rule 133 to the extent it provides for levy of interest and penalty is within the rule making power of the Central government.
      • Goods and Services Tax collected on the additional realization has rightly been included in the profiteered amount.
      • Time Limit for furnishing of report by Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) is directory and not mandatory.
      • Expansion of investigation beyond the scope of the complaint is not ultra vires the statute. Section 171 of the CGST Act is widely worded and does not limit the scope of examination to only goods and services in respect of which a complaint is received.
  7. Recently the Madras High Court held that the relevant date for calculating the period of limitation under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is the date on which the final report by the prosecuting agency is filed and not the date on which the first information report (FIR) is registered.
    • Justice N Anand Venkatesh also said that one must be conscious of the fact that a ‘complaint’ under Section 190 of the CrPC is different from the information a complainant gives to the police and on the basis of which an FIR under Section 154 of the CrPC is then based.
    • the Court said, From the above discussion, it is manifestly clear that all of the aforesaid decisions including the reference to the Constitution Bench in Sarah Mathew were cases arising out of a complaint under Section 190(1)(a) and not by way of a police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The decision in Sarah Mathew, supra, has no doubt held that the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint. However, as pointed out above, those observations were made in the context of a case arising out of a complaint under Section 190(1)(a). An FIR is lodged under Section 154 Cr.PC upon receipt of “information” and is not a “complaint”. The term “complaint” under the Cr.PC has a definitive meaning and the relaying of information to the police to set the criminal law in motion under Section 154 Cr.PC does not amount to giving a “complaint” within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Code.
    • the Court said, In the previous hearing, this Court had, prima facie, expressed its reservations on the aforesaid observations as it appeared to have equated the information given to the police under Section 154 Cr.PC as being akin to a complaint under Section 2(d) of the Code.
    • the Court held, For the aforesaid reasons, I am unable to subscribe to the view taken by the learned single judge in Kishore v State reported in (2023) 2 LW (Cri) 285. In normal circumstances, this would have necessitated a reference to a Division Bench for an authoritative pronouncement. However, as I find the law to be settled by a three-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the requirement of making a reference has been obviated,” Justice Venkatesh said. “This decision makes it clear that the relevant date for reckoning the cut-off is the date on which the final report was filed and not the date on which the FIR was registered.
  8. On Monday the Gujarat High Court pulled up the Vadodara Municipal Corporation (VMC) for the lack of supervision on its part over the private contractor who was looking after the boating activities in Harni Lake in which 14 persons (12 students and 2 teachers) died after a boat capsized on 18th January. (Re: 12 students and 2 teachers drown in Harni Lake)
    • A division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha Mayee issued a notice to the VMC Commissioner and ordered him to file an affidavit spelling out what the civic body did prior to the incident. 
    • Chief Justice Agarwal said, You may have taken 100 collective measures after this incident. But we are not on what you did after the incident. We want to know how you were operating prior to the incident. We find there was complete lack of supervision on your part because you slept after giving contract to a private person.
    • the bench remarked, Aren’t the civic bodies checking if the private contractors are following the norms or not? These water bodies are to be looked after the corporation. We aren’t against the use of such bodies for amusement but the civic bodies need to keep a check.
    • the bench observed, We want to know the terms of the contract. All this is just an eyewash.
    • the bench said, The State, to avoid future such instances, has now woke up and has called for reports from all civic bodies and has also instructed to stop such activities.
    • We propose to expand the scope from this lake to all water bodies. Our main aim is people may have fun but with safety and whatever safety measures are required that must be taken care of.
    • Chief Justice Agarwal responded, Though they were future of family and family had aspirations but a government establishment job cannot be given like this. Even the Contractor in this case is not some big company that he could provide some kind of jobs to the family members.
    • Mind your language. You are in a court of law. An advocate must know his limits in the court. If you want to continue this, we will not let you speak in our court. You are the President of the Bar Association, people should look upto you, when you come to argue here.
    • The Chief Justice added, This is not your demonstration manch. Bahar jaake jo bolna hai boliye, but not in this court. You don’t make it a political issue. You have taken name of a political party. We will reject your application for intervention.
    • the bench underscored, After this incident I realised I too have gone without life jacket. They took the Chief Justice also without life jacket. I could have drowned in the lake. But see the way we are… Unless and until such an incident occurs everybody thinks that this will never happen. We always live in denial mode.
  9. Recently the Kerala High Court emphasised that bail conditions imposed by courts should not be unduly burdensome on the accused and a bail condition for the production of sureties or the execution of a bail bond should not become a form of punishment.  (Venugopal v State of Kerala)
    • Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas ruled that courts should not insist on different sureties in different cases against the same accused and the accused should be allowed to produce a single surety to secure bail in all of the cases against him as long as the surety so produced is trustworthy.
    • the Court added, As long as the surety is solvent and inspires the confidence of the courts, insistence on the production of separate sureties for each case is opposed to law.
    • the Court said, The courts must bear in mind that insistence on sureties and execution of bail bonds cannot be another ordeal or a punishment for the accused.
    • the High Court warned, In cases where there are many crimes registered against an accused, this Court has come across a tendency on the part of the court granting bail to insist on furnishing separate sureties or to furnish bonds commensurate with the quantum involved in the criminal case. Insistence on the aforesaid two conditions is not based on any legally tenable principle and is in fact opposed to law.
    • the Court added, Insisting on separate sureties for 1726 cases can render the said condition incapable of performance, and the liberty of the petitioner may remain a mirage. Law does not prohibit the same surety being furnished in different cases. If the surety furnished can inspire confidence of the court on his ability to ensure the presence of the accused during trial, there is nothing that restrains the court from accepting the same surety in all the different crimes.
    • the High Court responded by holding that, It needs no elaborate discussion that court fees cannot be insisted on petitions filed by accused who are in prison.
  10. On Monday the Delhi High Court observed that gag orders should be passed only when it is necessary to prevent substantial risk to the fairness of a trial.  (Ajay Kumar v. Union of India & Ors)
    • Justice Subramonium Prasad added that just because a publication relates to court proceedings, it cannot be concluded that it is affecting a fair trial. The court has to carefully see the nature of the publication and find out whether or not the content of the publication will cause prejudice to the trial.
    • the single-judge said, Prejudice by a publication can be of two categories one which tends to impair the courts impartiality and the other which prejudices the court’s ability to determine true facts… It is well settled that gag orders should be passed only when it is necessary and to prevent substantial risk to fairness of a trial.
    • the Court observed, The Petitioner has come to this Court seeking for a gag order against Respondents No.2 & 3 without bringing on record all the relevant facts and material. This Court is of the opinion that the instant petition is nothing but a complete abuse of the process of law by the Petitioner. A reading of newspaper cuttings does not give any indication that it pertains to any consumer complaint in which the Petitioner is involved. A reading of the newspaper cuttings also does not indicate that it is in any way connected to the Writ Petition filed by the mother of the Petitioner.
  11. On Monday the Delhi High Court asked cricketer MS Dhoni’s former business partner Mihir Diwakar and Diwakar’s wife Soumya Das (plaintiffs) to set out specific allegations against media houses who allegedly defamed them after Dhoni had filed a cheating complaint against them.
    • Justice Prathiba M Singh passed the order after advocate Siddhant Kumar appeared for news agency ANI and argued that the platform only reported the fact that a complaint had been filed by Dhoni against Diwakar and Das.
    • The criminal complaint was filed for offences under Section 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at the Ranchi District Court.
    • The Court adjourned the case to April 3.
  12. On Monday Bar associations of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) have sought the intervention of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Law & Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal in respect of litigation initiated by the Defence Ministry challenging AFT verdicts in favour of disabled armed forces personnel and pensioners.
    • the letter, Because of this it seems that the prestige of certain officers got hurt and not only did they start tarnishing the image of poor disabled personnel suffering from various medical conditions, they also went out of the way to obtain legal opinion from top Law Officers to challenge the verdicts of the AFT in the High Courts all across the country and the Supreme Court, which were in favour of disabled personnel and other pensioners.
    • We sincerely feel that time should be spent by certain such officers in doing something good for the nation rather than satisfying their egos at the cost of disabled military veterans, widows and families.
    • The bar bodies says, You are also most humbly requested to sensitise your officers and also law officers not to use disparaging language against soldiers, retired disabled soldiers and their widows in Court proceedings when they approach judicial forums for relief. Since the government has always stated itself to be committed to the welfare of troops and veterans and their families, this is the minimum amount of dignity that they deserve.
  13. Recently the Calcutta High Court remarked while permitting the conduct of a Tiranga Rally on Republic Day, Every citizen of India takes pride in the country’s tri-colour flag. (Sanjib Kumar Sau vs State of West Bengal)
    • Single-judge Justice Rajasekhar Mantha added that it is the “bounden duty” of the police to promote such Tiranga Rallies.
    • the judge observed in the order, Every citizen of this country takes pride in the Tri-colour. To promote respect and dignity for the same is to promote building of a national identity, unity and a patriotic gesture. It is apt and appropriate to hold a Tiranga Rally on Republic Day.
    • the Court underscored, It is the bounden duty of all the security forces and the Police in this country to promote such rallies and functions.
    • the Court opined, People are generally in a joyous and happy mood (during Republic Day). It is unlikely that there will be disturbance or requirement of heavy police personnel on a particular date.
    • the judge said, In this regard, the Division Bench of this Court headed by the Chief Justice has already pronounced that rallies are common place in the State and City. The public at large are used to such rallies and inconvenience to them is taken in stride.
    • Justice Mantha said, The petitioner himself shall be the person responsible for all the undertakings given in the petition and for compliance of all the stipulations and conditions that are normally imposed by the police for holding any public rally in the State.
  14. The second edition of the Delhi Arbitration Weekend (‘DAW’) 2024, will be hosted in March this year by the Delhi International Arbitration Center, Delhi High Court, in collaboration with the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Delhi.
    • The inaugural ceremony would be held at the Supreme Court of India and working sessions will take place at the High Court of Delhi, from March 6-10, 2024. 
    • For more details and registration, click here to visit the official website of DAW.
  15. On Monday the Delhi High Court dismissed a plea filed by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay seeking directions to include Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy treatments in the Ayushman Bharat scheme.
  16. On Monday the Supreme Court issued notice to the Central government on a plea to fill the vacant posts in the National Commission of Scheduled Castes.
  17. On Monday the Supreme Court rapped a lawyer who out of turn made an out of turn mentioning about listing of a case related to reforms in judiciary.
  18. Recently the Supreme Court passed a general order directing its registry, all High Courts and subordinate courts to stop the practice of mentioning the caste or religion of litigants in case papers.
  19. On Monday the Supreme Court sought responses from the Indian Army and the Indian Air Force in a contempt of court case filed against them for not paying an officer ₹1.6 crore in compensation for medical negligence that led to him contracting HIV.  (CPL Ashish Kumar Chauhan Retd v. Col Sanjay Nijhawan and ors)
  20. Recently the Bombay High Court rejected the anticipatory bail plea of a man in a cheating case after it found that he had married at least five women and concealed the same. (Shantilal Yashwant Kharat v State of Maharashtra)
  21. On Monday the Supreme Court pulled up a Surat magistrate and the Gujarat Police for remanding an accused to custody after he was granted interim anticipatory bail by the apex court.  (Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. State of Gujarat)
  22. On Monday the Supreme Court upheld the anticipatory bail granted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court to former Chief Minister (CM) Nara Chandrababu Naidu in connection with the Inner Ring Road scam.  (State of Andhra Pradesh vs Nara Chandrababu Naidu)
  23. On Monday the Supreme Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by PG Manu, a former senior Government Pleader from Kerala who has been accused of rape. (PG Manu vs State of Kerala and ors)
  24. Recently the Allahabad High Court observed Courts cannot be treated like industrial establishments where strikes may occur since such strikes by lawyers to abstain from court work would bring the wheels of justice to a standstill.  (Jang Bahadur Kushwaha v State)
  25. On Monday the Supreme Court judge, Justice Aravind Kumar recused from hearing the dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka over arrangements to share water in the Cauvery/ Kaveri river.
  26. On Monday A Petitions filed by eight Hindu-Muslim couples for protection of life were dismissed by the Allahabad High Court since their marriages were not in compliance with the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act.
  27. The Indian government’s decision not to disclose orders passed by a review committee upholding the blocking of several tweets on X (formerly Twitter) was questioned today by the social media giant before the Karnataka High Court.

For Legal Support Contact: –

Adv. Shiv Kumar (Delhi High Court and Subordinate Court Delhi)

contact no: – 9608762166, Mail:- shiv@legalprudent.in

Adv. Aishwarya Dorwekar (Bombay High Court and City Civil & Session Court, Mumbai)

Contact: – 8828275839 And Live Advocate

Adv. Upasna Goyal (Punjab and Haryana High Court)

Contact: – Live Advocate

Adv. Manpreet Singh Bajwa (Punjab and Haryana High Court)

Contact: – Live Advocate

Adv. Rajeev Nayan (Patna High Court)

Contact: – Live Advocate

Adv. Dakshreddy B. (Madras High Court and Madurai Bench)

Contact: – 9886049147

Legal Prudent Fraternity