Today’s Legal Updates

Wednesday, 2nd February 2022

Legal Awareness :- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

PART II CITIZENSHIP

Article -5 Citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution.

Citizenship at the commencement of this Constitution, every person who has his domicile in the territory of India and –

(a) who was born in the territory of India; or
(b) either of whose parents was born in the territory of India; or
(c) who has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years immediately preceding such commencement, shall be a citizen of India.

Today’s Legal Updates:-

  1. Today the Rajya Sabha was informed that a process for comprehensive amendments to criminal laws in consultation with all stakeholders was initiated by the Central government.
    • “The Department related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs, in its 146th Report had recommended that there is a need for a comprehensive review of the Criminal Justice System of the country. Earlier, the Parliamentary Standing Committee in its 111th and 128th reports had also stressed upon the need to reform and rationalize the criminal law of the country by introducing a comprehensive legislation in Parliament rather than bringing about piece-meal amendments in respective Acts.”
    • The Delhi High Court is currently hearing a writ petition challenging Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which effectively grants immunity to husbands from being charged with rape if they establish sexual relations with their wives without consent.
  2. The Supreme Court will hear on February 8 the plea by US tech giant Amazon challenging the Delhi High Court order which had stayed the ongoing arbitration proceedings against Future Group related to 2019 deal between the two companies.
  3. Today the Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the appointment of six judicial officers as judges of the Delhi High Court.
    1. Poonam A Bamba
    2. Neena Bansal Krishna
    3. Dinesh Kumar Sharma
    4. Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
    5. Swarana Kanta Sharma
    6. Sudhir Kumar Jain
  4. Today the Supreme Court Collegium has reiterated its recommendation to appoint advocate  Cheppudira Monnappa Poonacha as a judge of the Karnataka High Court.
  5. Today the Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the appointment of seven advocates and five judicial officers as judges of the Telangana High Court.
    • The lawyers recommended for appointment are 
      1. Kasoju Surendhar @ K Surender
      2. Chada Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy
      3. Surepalli Nanda
      4. Mummineni Sudheer Kumar
      5. Juvvadi Sridevi @ Kuchadi Sridevi
      6.  Mirza Safiulla Baig,
      7. Natcharaju Shravan Kumar Venkat
    • The five judicial officers whose names have been recommended are 
      1. G Anupama Chakravarthy
      2. MG Priyadarshini
      3. Sambasivarao Naidu
      4. A Santosh Reddy
      5. Dr D Nagarjun
  6. Today the Supreme Court collegium has reiterated its recommendation to appoint of five judicial officers as judges of the Calcutta, Jharkhand and Bombay High Courts.
    • The judicial officers recommended to Calcutta High Court are 
      1. Shampa Dutt (Paul)   
      2. Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
    • The judicial officers recommended to Bombay High Court are 
      1. US Joshi-Phalke  
      2. BP Deshpande
    • The judicial officer whose name has been reiterated for Jharkhand High Court is 
      1. Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
  7. Today the Supreme Court Collegium has reiterated the names of two lawyers for appointment as judges of Patna High Court.
    1. Khatim Reza
    2. Dr. Anshuman Pandey
  8. Today the Delhi High Court issued notice to the Central government in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking prohibition on the slaughter of old bulls and buffaloes.  (Brishbhan Verma v. Union of India and Ors)
  9. Today the Supreme Court said that it will hear a plea seeking postponement of the Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering (GATE) exam scheduled to be held offline in February this year.  (Sachin Tanwar and ors vs Union of India and anr)
  10. On Monday the Supreme Court imposed costs of ₹7,500 on the Central government for failing to file its response to a public interest litigation petition filed by BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeking identification and grant of minority status to communities based on their population at the State level.  (Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India)
  11. Today Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Maharashtra Nitesh Rane withdrew his bail application filed in the Bombay High Court after stating that he would surrender for investigation before the Kankavali Police Station, in relation to an attempt to murder case.
  12. Today the Supreme Court asked the Central government to consider a plea filed by 1993 Bombay blasts convict Abu Salem that his imprisonment cannot extend beyond 25 years as per the terms of the extradition treaty between India and Portugal.  (Abu Salem v. State of Maharashtra)
  13. The Central government has told the Kerala High Court that the recent decision of the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting to revoke the licence of Malayalam news channel MediaOne was based on credible national security concerns flagged by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).  (Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v Union of India & Ors.)
  14. Today District & Sessions court Dhanbad, Jharkhand has framed charges against an autorickshaw driver and his assistant in the case relating to death of Judge Uttam Anand, Additional District & Sessions Judge-III framed charges against accused Lakhan Kumar Verma and Rahul Kumar Verma for commission of offences under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (disappearance of evidence) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.
  15. Prof Harpreet Kaur has taken charge as Registrar of National Law University, Delhi (NLU Delhi) effective from 28th January 2022.
  16. Today advocate Karuna Nundy told the Delhi High Court the marital rape exception under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is unconstitutional because it gives primacy to the institution of marriage over the individuals in the marriage.  (RIT Foundation v Union of India)
    • Nundy argued that an Exception provided in a statute on criminal law cannot subsume the object of the main provision and that is exactly what is being done by Exception 2 to Section 375 of the IPC.
    • “The alleged object of the Exception is protection of the institution. Our submission is that by doing so, it will nullify the main provision which is protection of women from rape, and this is impermissible. The object of rape laws is to ensure that women are not raped. Retaining the Exception will nullify the very object of rape law,”
    • “The general rule is when an Exception is against the statute, the statute’s general provisions cannot be invalidated unless it appears that the legislature would not have enacted the former without the latter… The perceived object of the Exception nullifies the object of main provision of 375, therefore it should be struck down.”
    • “It does take the husbands of adult wives out of the offence as defined in the main law. It grants immunity to husbands and that immunity is provided in the law given by colonial masters. Therefore, if the Exception were to be struck down, it would not be a creation of offence, only a new class of people will be brought under it. The offence already exists. This is the precise reason why the Supreme Court said in Independent Thought case that they were not creating any offence…If my lords were to strike down Exception 2, that would merely introduce a new class of offender. That is all husbands who have had forced sex with their wives.”
    • “It has been argued repeatedly that Exception 2 makes a sexual act within marriage not rape and that there are several things for the rescue of wives. According to us, it is impermissible since it minimizes the trauma of rape. It must be addressed specifically. The label of offence must reflect the nature of the offence.”
    • Referring to Article 15 of the Constitution, Nundy said that it was a special provision as when there is an ex-facie violation, the burden to prove constitutionality shifts to the government.
    • “The burden is on them to prove and demonstrate that not calling a forced intercourse as rape serves the State interest and that it is proportionate in nature to serve that interest. Our submission is that there is no compelling State interest in protecting the husbands or the institution here. And even if there were any such State interests, then it is in no way proportionate.”
    • “There is a clear mandate for my lords to act to bring justice to women who have been subjected to forced intercourse and the tiny minority who wish to go to the courts for the recognition that the harm they have suffered is not molestation or physical abuse but rape.”
  17. Today the Karnataka High Court directed the State government to submit a concrete proposal to solve the problem of space crunch in the High Court building.  (Ramesh Naik L v. State of Karnataka)
  18. Today Contesting the bail application of Umar Khalid and others in a Delhi Riots case, the prosecution argued that the accused “deflected” the blame towards Chandrashekhar Azad’s Bhim Army and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) member Kapil Mishra. (State v. Umar Khalid & Ors)
  19. Today Dr. Kafeel Khan has moved the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court challenging termination of his services from the State-run BRD Medical College by the Uttar Pradesh government.
  20. Today the Delhi High Court issued notice in a plea alleging that Google violated the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules, 2021) by removing his YouTube videos and user accounts.  (Rachit Kaushik v Union of India & Ors)
  21. Today the Delhi High Court issued notices to the Central government, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board (IBC Board), and a Committee of Creditors (CoC), on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 95 and 101 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).  (Varun Jajoo and Ors v Union of India and Ors)
  22. Today the Competition Commission of India (CCI/Commission) has imposed a collective penalty of ₹1,500 crore on five tyre manufacturers and Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association (ATMA) for indulging in cartelisation.
    • ₹425.53 crore on Apollo Tyres
    • ₹622.09 crore on MRF Ltd.
    • ₹252.16 crore on CEAT Ltd.
    • ₹309.95 crore on JK Tyre
    • ₹178.33 crore on Birla Tyres

Legal Prudent Fraternity