Today’s Legal Updates

Saturday, 5th February 2022



Article -8 Rights of citizenship of certain persons of Indian origin residing outside India.

Notwithstanding anything in article 5, any person who or either of whose parents or any of whose grandparents was born in India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935 (as originally enacted), and who is ordinarily residing in any country outside India as so defined shall be deemed to be a citizen of India if he has been registered as a citizen of India by the diplomatic or consular representative of India in the country where he is for the time being residing on an application made by him therefor to such diplomatic or consular representative, whether before or after the commencement of this Constitution, in the form and manner prescribed by the Government of the Dominion of India or the Government of India.

Parliament Session :-

  • The Parliamentary Questions answered on day four of the ongoing 2022 Budget Session ranged from spam calls, pre-litigation settlement of cases, compliance with the new IT Rules, and more.
    1. Compliance with IT Rules, 2021
      • question by CPI Member of Parliament from Kerala, Minister for Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) Ashwini Vaishnav said that while his Ministry is not mandated to maintain the list of intermediaries under the IT Rules of 2021, digital publishers are required to furnish certain information to the government.
      • Over 2,100 digital publishers have furnished the requisite information so far, the Union Minister said in the Rajya Sabha. “MeitY, suo moto, does not track compliance by intermediaries, but relies on the reporting by the users of non-compliance if any.”
    2. Bulli Bai, Sulli deals
      • TDP Member of Parliament from Andhra Pradesh Kanakamedala Ravindra Kumar asked the Central government about its awareness and action taken against web-apps targeting women.
      • Two such Apps with derogatory and malafide intentions against women, which came to the notice of Government, were hosted on an open-source platform namely “GitHub”. Both the Apps allegedly picked up the profiles of the women from social media platforms, and Twitter was used to promote the alleged content,
      • The rapid growth and openness of the internet allows for such kind of applications, the Minister stated, adding that such apps “reflect the aberrations of the society and the misuse of capabilities to develop the Apps and post any unlawful activities in the virtual space.
    3. Tele Law Scheme
      • BJP Member of Parliament from Sirsa Sunita Duggal asked about cases resolved through the Tele-Law scheme.
      • Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju answered in the Lok Sabha, 12,97,332 cases have been registered and 12,81,591 beneficiaries have been provided pre-litigation advice till 31st December, 2021 under Tele-law scheme,
      • He added that the scheme provides for access to “pre-litigation advice and consultation directly from the Panel Lawyer, free of cost. The Application is available in 6 languages viz. Marathi, Punjabi, Tamil, Telugu, Hindi and English on Android and iOS platform.
    4. Vacancies in Indian Legal Services cadre
      • Answering a question in the Lower House, Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju revealed that currently, “around 64 out of 157 posts in the Indian Legal Services cadre are vacant, which works out to 41% of the total cadre strength in the Indian Legal Services cadre.
    5. Spam and phishing calls 
      • BJP Member of Parliament from Maharashtra Vikas Mahatme asked sought details on the extent of spam call complaints received by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and the action taken in this regard.
      • Minister of State for Communications Devusinh Chauhan replied that the Telecom Commercial Communication Customers Preference Regulation (TCCCPR), 2018 was introduced with an aim to prevent the incidence of Unsolicited Commercial Communications (UCC), which may include spam and phishing calls.
      • As revealed in the chart below, the number of UCC complaints had almost doubled in 2021 as compared to 2020 (April 1 onwards). The cities of Mumbai and Delhi and the States of Karnataka, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu saw a higher incidence in the number of such complaints.
UCC = Unsolicited Commercial Communications

Today’s Legal Updates:-

  1. In view of the decrease in number of COVID-19 infections in the State, the Karntataka High Court has relaxed the restrictions imposed at its Principal Bench in Bengaluru and the Dharwad, Kalbhagiri seats and has allowed hearings through hybrid mode.
    • Advocates and parties-in-person whose cases are listed are allowed to enter the court complex by strictly complying with COVID norms. Parties-in-person are required to show details of the case listed through a hard copy or an electronic copy.
    • Every person entering Court premises including advocates, parties-in-person, staff members and litigants should preferably wear double face-mask including one N95 face mask ,and staff of the High Court are to wear hand gloves all the time.
  2. The Kerala High Court held that citizens cannot claim any fundamental to right to ask the government to remove Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s photograph from Covid-19 vaccination certificates.
    • the Court held, “However, a citizen is not entitled as of right to ask the Government of India to remove the inscriptions and photograph of the Prime Minister from the Certificate exercising rights under the said article, because according to us such a claim is never a fundamental right envisaged thereunder. This is for the basic reason that such a course is adopted by the Government of India with the intention of gathering attention of the citizens, and motivating and inspiring the people to co operate with the Government, and thereby to ensure that maximum number of citizens take the vaccine in order to avoid fatality,
    • “An elected Government functioning in a democratic set up has got its own operational freedom to discharge its functions without seriously affecting and rupturing the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens of the country,” 
    • the Court said in its judgement, “We do not think that the Prime Minister of India requires any more advertisement than occupying the office of the Prime Minister of India and thereby making his presence in several hundreds of platforms within the country and abroad. That said, it is a fallacious contention that the attempt is to attract the electorate, because the vaccination certificate is downloaded by the individual and kept with him for his personal purposes, and thinking so it would not fetch any larger publicity, than confining to the particular individual,” 
    • “It is not the fundamental right of an individual that concerns the Government of India, but the fundamental rights enjoyed by the larger public, is the concern in a situation like the instant COVID 19 Pandemic. An individual right on the basis of the guaranteed fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution of India is subservient to the larger public interest when any volatile situation has engulfed the nation and the entire world,”
    •  the Division Bench reduced the costs imposed by the single-judge from ₹1 lakh to ₹25,000 with a caution to the appellant that in the future he should not venture into filing unwanted and frivolous petitions and waste the valuable time of the court.
  3. Yesterday the Karnataka High Court passed a resolution to place a portrait of Dr. BR Ambedkar in all official functions of the Courts such as Republic Day, Independence Day and Constitution Day at the Principal Bench at Bengaluru, and the Benches at Dharwad and Kalaburagi, as well as all District and Taluk Courts in the State.
  4. Yesterday the Supreme Court observed that under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (ID Act), 1947, it is not open for the Labour Court to entertain disputed questions and adjudicate upon the employer-­employee relationship.  (M/s Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner and Another)
  5. Yesterday the Delhi government announced that masks will no longer be mandatory for people driving alone in cars in the capital.
  6. A husband who was barred from recording telephonic conversations with his wife has moved the Supreme Court in appeal.  (Vibhor Garg v. Neha)
    • The appellant has approached the apex court against a Punjab & Haryana High Court order which held that recording of telephonic conversations of his wife without her knowledge amounts to infringement of her right to privacy. It was further held that the transcripts of such conversations cannot be accepted as evidence.
    • the High Court had said, “Recording of telephonic conversation of the wife without her knowledge, is a clear cut infringement of her privacy…it cannot be said that as the Family Court is not bound by strict rules of evidence, it is at liberty to accept the CD in evidence which is a clear cut infringement of the right of privacy of the wife,
    • “The learned Family Court has given a complete go bye to Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, because if recording has been done through a mobile phone, CD’s of the recording and transcripts thereof in any case, cannot be accepted as evidence thereof. Moreover, there is non-compliance of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act,” 
  7. Yesterday the Gujarat High Court dropped criminal contempt proceedings dating back to 2008 against a lawyer who claimed that the Court was biased towards a certain religion. (Suo Moto v GM Das)
  8. Yesterday the Gauhati High Court upheld the Assam Repealing Act of 2020, which turned existing provincialised madrassas in the State to regular government schools.  (Imad Uddin Barbhuiyan and ors vs State of Assam and ors)
  9. Today the National Investigation Agency (NIA) moved an application before the Special NIA Court seeking to submit seized mobile phones of seven accused from the Bhima Koregaon case of 2018 to the Supreme Court appointed technical committee probing the Pegasus spyware scandal.

Legal Prudent Fraternity