Today’s Legal Updates

Tuesday, 29th March 2022




Distribution of Revenues between the Union and the States

Article – 275 Grants from the Union to certain States.

(1) Such sums as Parliament may by law provide shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund of India in each year as grants-in-aid of the revenues of such States as Parliament may determine to be in need of assistance, and different sums may be fixed for different States:
Provided that there shall be paid out of the Consolidated Fund of India as grants-in-aid of the revenues of a State such capital and recurring sums as may be necessary to enable that State to meet the costs of such schemes of development as may be undertaken by the State with the approval of the Government of India for the purpose of promoting the welfare of the Scheduled Tribes in that State or raising the level of administration of the Scheduled Areas therein to that of the administration of the rest of the areas of that
Provided further that there shall be paid out of the Consolidated Fund of India as grants-in-aid of the revenues of the State of Assam sums, capital and recurring, equivalent to—
(a) the average excess of expenditure over the revenues during the two years immediately preceding the commencement of this Constitution in respect of the administration of the tribal areas specified in [Part I] of the table appended to paragraph 20 of the Sixth Schedule;
(b) the costs of such schemes of development as may be undertaken by that State with the approval of the Government of India for the purpose of raising the level of administration of the said areas to that of
the administration of the rest of the areas of that State.
[(1A) On and from the formation of the autonomous State under article 244A,—
(i) any sums payable under clause (a) of the second proviso to clause (1) shall, if the autonomous State
comprises all the tribal areas referred to therein, be paid to the autonomous State, and, if the autonomous State comprises only some of those tribal areas, be apportioned between the State of Assam and the autonomous State as the President may, by order, specify;
(ii) there shall be paid out of the Consolidated Fund of India as grants-in-aid of the revenues of the
autonomous State sums, capital and recurring, equivalent to the costs of such schemes of development as may be undertaken by the autonomous State with the approval of the Government of India for the purpose of raising the level of Administration of that State to that of the administration of the rest of the State of Assam.]
(2) Until provision is made by Parliament under clause (1), the powers conferred on Parliament under
that clause shall be exercisable by the President by order and any order made by the President under this clause shall have effect subject to any provision so made by Parliament:
Provided that after a Finance Commission has been constituted no order shall be made under this clause by the President except after considering the recommendations of the Finance Commission.

Today Legal Updates :-

  1. Today the Delhi High Court restrained a Khan Market stall owner from selling, soliciting, exporting, importing or displaying any product with the trademark of British luxury fashion house Burberry.  (Burberry Limited v Aditya Verma)
  2. Today the Allahabad High Court granted protection from arrest to Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Mau constituency Abbas Ansari in a case that stemmed from statements made against government officials at a public rally. (Abbas Ansari v State Of UP)
  3. Today the Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court convicted a man accused of sexually assaulting his 14-year-old daughter.  (State of Karnataka v Asif Rasoolsab Sanadi)
    • the acquittal of a special court and sentenced the accused to rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and fine of ₹50,000 for offences of rape under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).
    • the High Court said, “Court cannot ignore trauma undergone by tender aged child by such inhuman act. The courts should be very sensitive in such cases, when evidence of victim is consistent and reliable. Under such circumstances, the entire approach of the trial court is erroneous, perverse, capricious and from the initial stage itself, the trial court has proceeded with biased mind against the victim girl, which cannot be accepted,” 
    • “On perusal of the judgment of the trial court, it is evident that the trial court did not consider the position of the child and the trauma undergone by the child while facing sexual assault. Further, the trial being conducted by the trial court in such a casual manner that all the witnesses were recalled after 7 months and such attitude is deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The reasoning of the trial court does not inspire the consciousness of the court and the trial court on surmises and assumptions presumed certain things and acquitted the accused,” 
    • the Court observed, “Hence, it is evident that the accused tried to win over the victim in these 7 months and there was an attempt, but the evidence discloses that the accused did committed sexual assault on the victim,”
    • “Interestingly, though the evidence of this witness recorded on 23.01.2016, the cross examination was held on September 8, 2016 after recalling the witness. It discloses that, defence has developed a tendency not to cross-examine the witnesses on the same day and the conduct is completely against the intention of the legislation in incorporating Section 309 of CrPC”, 
    • the Court said, “In fact, it is not all appreciable to call a witness for cross-examination after such a long span of time. It is imperative if the examination-in- chief is over, the cross-examination should be completed on the same day. If the examination of a witness continues till late hours the trial can be adjourned to the next day for cross-examination,” 
  4. Today a  public interest litigation has been filed before the Bombay High Court seeking a permanent mechanism to fill up vacancies of judges in the High Court.  (Bombay Lawyers Association v. The Registrar General, Supreme Court of India & Ors.)
    • The plea pointed out that although the sanctioned strength of judges of the High Court is 94, it is currently functioning with only 57 judges out of which 9 are due to retire by the end of the year 2022.
    • “In the circumstances, if the vacancies are not been filled up, the working strength of judges at High Court will be decreased to 48 at the end of the year 2022,”
    • Official data from the High Court website pointed out that the case clearance rate of the year 2021 was 67.52%, which meant there was pendency of 32.48% in the year 2021.
  5. Today the Karnataka High Court vacated the interim order it had passed in February asking the Commissioner of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to cancel the contract with Simplex Infrastructures for construction of a flyover at Koramangala.  (Adinarayan Shetty v. State of Karnataka and Ors)
    • The company had approached the Court challenging the termination of the contract, and expressed its readiness to complete the construction of the flyover in a time-bound manner. It was submitted that the delay in the construction project was not solely the company’s fault, but was caused by unavoidable circumstances.
    • permitted the company to file an affidavit undertaking to complete the project by the end of 2022.
  6. Today the Delhi High Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking investigation into organisations that allegedly took huge sums of money as donation for Covid-19 relief and then laundered it to fund terror organisations like Jamat-e- Islami, Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, Lashkar-e-Taiba, AlKhidmat and Hamas.
  7. Today the Kerala High Court declined to grant bail to Pulsar Suni, the prime accused in the 2017 actress abduction and sexual assault case in which Malayalam cine actor Dileep is an accused. (Sunil NS v State of Kerala)
  8. The State of Uttar Pradesh has told the Supreme Court that all 98 witnesses in the Lakhimpur Kheri case have been given adequate security, and that the petitioner was attempting to conflate issues.
  9. Today the Kerala High Court held that the State government is empowered to invoke the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act) to acquire land for the Silverline project of the Kerala Rail Development Corporation Limited (K-Rail).  (MV Chackochan & Ors. v Union of India)
  10. Today the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) ordered a property developer to refund the entire principal amount paid by a homebuyer with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum and ₹25,000 in litigation costs. (Vikas Jain v M/s Chintels India Ltd.)
  11. Today a  petition before the Supreme Court has challenged notifications for the delimitation of Assembly Constituencies for the Union Territory (UT) of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) claiming that they are without jurisdiction. (Haji Abdul Gani Khan v Union of India)
  12. A doctor accused of committing unnatural offences against a man was acquitted by a Mumbai court on the ground that the survivor man could not have recognised the doctor who was wearing a PPE kit.  (State of Maharashtra vs Jayesh Vasdev Jeswani)
    • The survivor was working as the Human Resources head at a hospital where the accused Doctor began working on May 1, 2020. The man was taken to the hospital’s ICU unit with symptoms of COVID-19.
    • the accused rushed to inspect him while he was asleep. The charge was that the accused engaged in improper sexual activity with the man while examining him.
    • “It is required to note that, the victim has not disclosed what type of sexual abuse happened with him and whether it is at the hands of accused. But, in the FIR and thereafter in the Statements of witnesses including victim, the details of sexual abuses are mentioned. But its source is not brought on record,”
    • “If the incident mentioned in FIR is considered, it creates doubt whether any person after removing PPE Kit commit such types of acts during the surge of Covid­-19,” 
  13. Today Advocate General (AG) Ashutosh Kumbhakoni informed the Bombay High Court that the State of Maharashtra has withdrawn the demolition order against the bungalow belonging to Union Minister Narayan Rane’s company.  (Kaalkaa Real Estates Private Limited & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
  14. Today the Patiala House court Delhi has granted bail to Aumkareshwar Thakur who allegedly created the Sulli Deals application and was charged for promoting enmity between different groups.
  15. Yesterday the Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to Aparna Purohit, the Commercial Head of Amazon Prime Video in relation to a complaint made in Lucknow, arising from purchase of the rights of web series “Tandav.” (Aparna Purohit v State of UP)
  16. Today the Delhi Police has opposed the bail plea of wrestler and Olympic medallist Sushil Kumar in the Chhatrasal Stadium murder case, alleging that he is the kingpin in the case and that witnesses are terrified of him.
  17. 287 lawyers have applied to the Supreme Court for senior designations pursuant to a notice issued by the top court on February 25, inviting applications for conferment of Senior gown.
  18. Today a  public interest litigation petition was recently filed before the Bombay High Court seeking implementation of Supreme Court guidelines that mandate inclusion of transgender persons in public sector employment.
  19. Today the Delhi High Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) petition challenging the Delhi government’s decision on full resumption of physical classes in schools from 1st April 2022.  (Anand Kumar Pandey v. The Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr)
  20. Today the Supreme Court issued notice to the Karnataka government in a plea challenging the exemption granted to Kodavas from the requirement to obtain a licence to carry and possess firearms under the Arms Act, 1959.  (Capt. Chetan YK (Retd) v. Union of India)
  21. Yesterday the Karnataka High Court directed the State government to take appropriate steps to establish gaushalas (cow shelters) and file a status report in the matter.  (High Court Legal Services Committee v. State of Karnataka and Ors)

Legal Prudent Fraternity