Today’s Legal Updates

Saturday, 5th March 2022



Right to Constitutional Remedies

Article – 32 Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

  1. The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights
    conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
  2. The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature
    of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
  3. Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may
    by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
  4. The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this

Article – 32A [Constitutional validity of State laws not to be considered in proceedings under article 32.] Rep. by the Constitution (Forty-third Amendment) Act, 1977, s. 3(w.e.f. 13-4-1978).

Today’s Legal Updates :-

  1. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) last week ordered the Director-General (DG) to carry out an investigation into Star India Private Limited and its subsidiaries (opposite parties), in relation to allegations by Asianet Digital Network of abuse of dominant market position. (Asianet Digital Network (P) Ltd. v Star India Private Limited)
    • The Commission directs the Director General (DG) to cause an investigation to be made into the matter and submit an investigation report within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order,”
    • Therefore, on the basis of market share, dependence of consumers, Size and resources of the enterprise (being part of global media conglomerate), vertical integration of the enterprise and countervailing power, the Commission is of prima facie view that OP-1 enjoy a position of dominance in the relevant market delineated supra,” 
  2. On Thursday the Madhya Pradesh High Court issued notice to the State government on a plea challenging the indirect exclusion of those from outside the State to apply for State Civil Service Recruitment exam.  (Adam Khan vs State of Madhya Pradesh and ors)
  3. Today the Consumer Courts Advocates’ Association (CCAA) for Maharashtra and Goa have initiated steps against the acting-president Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) Dr Santosh K Kakade for judicial impropriety after he adjudicated a case in which he himself was a party.
    • During the meeting, there were four resolutions that were unanimously passed:
      • Filing a formal protest with the president of the National Commission of Consumer Redressal Commission, the Chief Justice of India, the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, and the Maharashtra government.
      • Writ petition or any other appropriate legal proceedings be filed with the Bombay High Court seeking Kakade’s removal.
      • Initiation of appropriate action and steps to protest against the judicial misconduct of Kakade to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
      • Pending the enquiry by authorities against Kakade, the members and non-members will abstain from appearing before him (this was stressed as Kakade refused to meet with the president of the Bar, Dr Uday Warunjikar, to discuss the issue).
  4. Today Khaitan & Co Partner Shishir Mehta has resigned to become an entrepreneur in the wellness sector.
  5. Today Rouse Avenue Court, Delhi rejected the anticipatory bail plea of former National Stock Exchange (NSE) head Chitra Ramkrishna, who faces arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for allegedly sharing confidential information relating to the NSE.  (Chitra Ramkrishna vs CBI)
    • It further appears prima facie that the applicant / accused had introduced an non existing person to misled the investigating agency, which may also prima facie show her connivance in the matter. The very appointment of Mr Anand Subramanian without following due process at very exorbitant salary, prima facie shows that all of them may have been acting in tandem with each other in carrying out or in furtherance of the objectives of the co-location scam,
    • Due to this financial skulduggery huge loss may have been caused to adherent stockbrokers, institutional investors, foreign institutional investors and honest investors, whose faith in this premier financial institution i.e. NSE may have been severely shaken and dented,
  6. Yesterday the Supreme Court stayed a judgment of the Kerala High Court which had granted divorce on the ground of mental cruelty after the wife refused to get medical treatment for an alleged mental illness. (X v. Y)
    • the appellant wife and the respondent husband got married in 2001 and two daughters were born out of wedlock. The wife claimed that from the very beginning of her married life, her husband and in-laws used to harass her verbally and allege that she was a mad person. She alleged that in 2009, her husband and his friends had even forcefully admitted her in a mental hospital, where she was given heavy doses of medication and falsely diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. As a result, she left her matrimonial home in 2011.
    • “Ailment of a spouse cannot be a reason to grant a decree of divorce even if it results in unusual behaviour which is not expected in normal marital life. The Apex Court in Kollam Chandra Sekhar v. Kollam Padma Latha [(2014) 1 SCC 225] opined that divorce cannot be granted merely for the reason of suffering of Schizophrenia. However, in the present case, this Court cannot ignore the fact that the appellant refused to acknowledge having illness, The consequence of refusal to undergo treatment would determine the fate of a normal relationship. If one spouse refuses to acknowledge illness and undergo treatment, and as a result of such refusal, the other spouse is deprived of normal conjugal relationship, that act would amount to cruelty,”
    • “The petitioner unequivocally reiterates that that she has never at any point of time, suffered from paranoid schizophrenia or any other mental disease and that the impugned judgement is legally untenable and liable to be set aside,” 
  7. Today the Rajasthan High Court bid farewell to its Chief Justice Akil Kureshi who is slated to demit office on Sunday.
  8. Today the Calcutta High Court has notified that it will begin physical hearings starting from on 7th March 2022, Monday.
    • The virtual hearing option shall be made available on complying with the following conditions:-
      • As and when the case is called on, a request may be made to the court by a lawyer to appear virtually citing any of the above circumstances.
      • Thereupon the Court on being satisfied may grant leave to the lawyer to appear virtually.
      • A link for that purpose may be requested for by the learned lawyer and provided to him by the Registry in advance of the hearing of the case.
      • A lawyer making a request to appear virtually should ensure that his junior is physically present in court, in case leave to appear virtually is refused by the court.
      • Not more than 20 lawyers shall be allowed in the court room at a particular point of time.
      • The High Court and the District courts shall revert back to the norms regarding dress code for the Judges and Lawyers followed prior to the covid pandemic.
  9. Today the Karnataka High Court directed the Chief Commissioner of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to file a personal affidavit explaining why dumping of mixed solid waste at the  Mittaganahalli quarry was permitted in violation of Court’s earlier order.  (Ms Kavit Shankar v. The State of Karnataka)
  10. The Delhi High Court has issued a fresh circular asking advocates, litigants as well as its staff to strictly refrain from feedings monkeys within the court complex.
  11. The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by advocate Manohar Lal Sharma seeking an inquiry by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the 2008 agreement between Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) and Anil Ambani owned Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL).  (Manohar Lal Sharma Advocate v Union of India and Ors)
    • “This Court is further of the view that the prayer for quashing of the execution proceeding is contrary to law and completely untenable… In the opinion of this Court, examination of the present complaint by the CBI cannot be expected to be completed in two days. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition is premature, as CBI has not had reasonable time to examine the complaint. This Court is confident that CBI shall examine the complaint filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. It is, however, made clear that it is open for the CBI to take a decision which it deems fit and appropriate in the present case,” 
  12. The Madras High Court will revert to physical hearing of cases from 7th March 2022, Monday.
  13. Today Supreme Court judge Justice Indira Banerjee was delivering the Keynote Address at an interactive session titled, ‘Breaking the Bias – A Constitutional, Legal & Policy Lens’, held in light of Women’s Day 2022 to reflect on the legal & policy nuances towards achieving gender equality in India, she said that “Stereotyping of women and attributing roles to men and women based on their gender has to change for ushering in women empowerment and preventing discrimination against women.”
  14. Today A Delhi court dismissed the bail plea filed by Tahir Hussain in connection with a case of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
    • “Thus, in view of the above above discussion, on prima facie reading of the complaint and material placed on record and considering the embargo of Section 45(1) PMLA, it cannot be held that the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offences or that he is not likely to commit any such offence while on bail. Hence, I am not inclined to allow the present application filed on behalf of applicant for grant of bail. The bail application is accordingly dismissed,” 
    • “A new case was introduced by the agency in the present case against the accused on the basis of alleged conspiracy with others. The case was registered on the predicate offence involving Section 120­B IPC in which applicant is an accused but co­-accused is not. In the present case, a totally new crime was introduced involving Section 120­B of IPC without any reference to a case of predicate offence,
    • “Under the instructions of Tahir Hussain, funds were transferred from companies owned/controlled by him to the accounts of fictitious/bogus entities created by entry operators. The entry operators operating such entities made payments of equivalent amount in cash to him. He was the ultimate beneficiary of the money received in cash which was used for fulfillment of his ulterior motives. Fake and bogus invoices were created to cover the money trail,” 
    • “The money so obtained by Tahir Hussain as a result of criminal activity relating to the offence of criminal conspiracy qualifies as ‘proceeds of crime’. The said ‘proceeds of crime’ generated through the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC, which is scheduled offence under PMLA, was used by Tahir Hussain to commit offences under Sections 302, 307 and 385 which have been invoked in the aforesaid FIRs and which are also scheduled offences under the PMLA, 2002,” 
    • “What the law requires for a conspiracy is an involvement of two or more persons. The granting of pardon to one, on his statement and the stand of the prosecution, does not detract from the fact that they were accused in this matter for the offence of money laundering,” 
    • “The fact that other co­ accused was not an accused in other FIRs does not mean that he cannot be an accused in the present matter since both IPC and PMLA are different statutes to deal with different kinds of offences and both operate in their own spheres,” 
    • “The predicate offence and the predicate case is required for initiation of complaint by the Directorate of Enforcement, which then has to investigate into the aspect of money laundering which is in its domain,” 

Legal Prudent Fraternity