Today’s Legal Updates

Thursday, 5th May 2022



Article – 307    Appointment of authority for carrying out the purposes of articles 301 to 304

Parliament may by law appoint such authority as it considers appropriate for carrying out the purposes of articles 301, 302, 303 and 304, and confer on the authority so appointed such powers and such duties as it thinks necessary.

Today’s Legal Updates :-

  1. On Thursday Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) chief and Rajya Sabha Member Sharad Pawar told the Bhima Koregaon Commission of Inquiry that persons making speeches within the ambit of the Constitution are not anti-national.
    • If any person makes a speech within the ambit of the Constitution of India and parliamentary democracy, then he cannot be called anti-national.
    • I have explained, in my additional affidavit filed before the Commission, (that the provision is) invoked to suppress their liberty and tend to stifle any voice of dissent raised in a peaceful and democratic way. I propose to raise this issue at appropriate forum like parliament being Member of Rajya Sabha (sic).
    • If any person/political leader chooses to do so and indulge in such public address or speech, then he is responsible for the consequences.
    • The incident of Koregaon Bhima and the Elgar Parishad are two different and separate issues. I am also aware that an eminent Judge late Hon’ble Justice PB Sawant, former Judge of Supreme Court of India was to preside over the Elgar Parishad. I feel that there was nothing wrong may have taken place. The speeches in Elgar Parishad may have been an outcry against oppression and atrocities committed against weaker section which does not amount to committing any offence under law.
    • Pawar suggested, The State Government should raise a separate War Memorial in the honor of soldiers who have sacrificed their lives after independence in war with Pakistan and China. This will put an end to the controversy of some ex-servicemen who had put the plate consisting the names of the soldiers who have sacrificed their lives in Kargil War.
  2. On Thursday an urgent application was moved in the Supreme Court against an event proposed to be held today in Delhi where speakers will publicly proclaim and affirm a resolution for India to be turned into a Hindu Rashtra.  (Qurban Ali v. Union of India)
    • As per the petitioners, an event is being organized at Talkatora Stadium, Delhi today at 5:00pm where one Shankaracharya of Puri and ‘Mahant’ of the Sri Govardhan Math, Nischalananda Saraswati, will, according to this web poster released by the Sudarshan News channel, publicly state and affirm a resolution for the country to become a Hindu Rashtra.
  3. On Thursday the Supreme Court Collegium recommended the names of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and JB Paridwala for elevation to the apex court.
  4. On Thursday the Supreme Court reserved its judgment in a plea filed by 1993 Bombay blasts convict Abu Salem claiming 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)
    • The court of appeal in Lisbon [that is High Court of Portugal] took note of the solemn assurance given by the Indian Government that Abu Salem to be extradited but only on the charges/offences which are mentioned, nothing else… and he cannot be punished with death penalty or imprisonment which exceeds 25 years.
    • Justice Kaul orally observed, So only when 2 months are left in completion of 25 years, then you should approach the court and it must be heard and orders passed before completion of 25 years.
    • the plea said, Error committed by the TADA Court was with regard to the issue of ‘Set Off’. According to the appellant though he was in custody for some offences of passport violation in Portugal since September 18, 2002 and was undergoing a sentence of 4½ years, yet, the Appellant was detained also on September 18, 2002 in pursuance to the Red Corner Notice issued by the Designated Courts, Mumbai.
    • the ASG submitted, Our starting point [of computation of 25 years of imprisonment] should be from when the accused/convict was taken into the custody after the extradition.
  5. On Thursday the Allahabad High Court conducted its first gender awareness and sensitization workshop in compliance with the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
    • Justice Agarwal spoke on the need for awareness of gender roles for better inter-personal relations between men and women, and a positive working environment. While referring to the importance of the workshop, the judge emphasised on the need to have similar workshops in the future.
    • Professor Sumita Parmar, former director of the Centre for Women’s Studies at Allahabad University, and member of the Committee, introduced the workshop. She underscored that the primary purpose of the workshop was to clarify the concept of gender in order to help increase gender awareness and sensitivity.
    • Professor Roop Rekha Verma, former Vice-Chancellor of Lucknow University, gave the opening lecture on the subject, Understanding Gender. She explained the difference between sex and gender to show how the latter was a social construct. She stressed on the need to analyse the social structures that caused men to behave in certain ways, and break existing stereotypes.
    • Justice DK Upadhyaya valedictory address, who impressed on the deeply embedded cultural and gender hierarchies that each person carried, and how these set ideas interfered with progressive thinking. The judge emphasised on the importance of replacing old and negative ideas with new, better ones and stressed on increased awareness and sensitivity.
  6. On Thursday the Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the appointment of Gauhati High Court Chief Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Gujarat High Court judge Justice JB Pardiwala as judges of Supreme Court.
  7. On Thursday the Supreme Court held that in cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), courts cannot proceed based on preponderance of probabilities but will require evidence beyond reasonable doubt. (J Sekar @Sekar Reddy v. Director of Enforcement)
    • the judgment said, In our opinion, even in cases of PMLA, the Court cannot proceed on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. On perusal of the statement of objects and reasons specified in PMLA, it is the stringent law brought by parliament to check money laundering. Thus, the allegation must be proved beyond reasonable doubt in the court.
    • the Supreme court held, For lack of identity of the source of collected money, it could not be reasonably believed by the Deputy Director (ED) that the unaccounted money is connected with the commission of offence under PMLA.
    • the apex court held, The Department itself is unable to collect any incriminating material and also not produced before this Court even after a lapse of 5 ½ years to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. From the material collected by the Agency, they themselves are prima facie not satisfied that the offence under PMLA can be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
  8. On Thursday the bail granted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court to a rape accused student youth wing leader was cancelled by the Supreme Court after it was brought to the notice of the Court about the accused being welcomed with posters which said Bhaiyaa is back” and “Welcome to role Janeman.”  (Ms P vs State of Madhya Pradesh)
  9. On Thursday the Central government, which is expected to be a fair litigant, is acting more or less like a private party, the Delhi High Court said in a contempt case related to non-payment of benefits to Armed Forces personnel.
    • It is disheartening to note that the respondents proceeded for compliance of the order dated January 7, 2022 for the petitioner herein only after the instant contempt petition was filed. The government which is expected to be a fair litigant is acting more or less like a private party.
    • the order said, Despite the said order passed by this Court, each petitioner… is being forced to file contempt petition for compliance of the (January 7) order passed by this Court.
    • This Court is disposing of the instant contempt petition taking into account the fact that no grievance subsists qua the petitioner herein. List on May 31, 2022, for compliance qua the other petitioners.
  10. On Thursday A public interest litigation has been filed before Bombay High Court seeking registration of sedition case against Maharashtra Navnirman Sena chief Raj Thackeray for holding press conferences and urging public to play Hanuman Chalisa on loudspeakers.  (Hemant Patil v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
    • Due to the said fact by the words spoken (by Thackeray), signs or by visible representation or otherwise brings, attempts to bring in hatred between Hindu and Muslim community at the instance of Thackeray.
    • Patil, therefore, sought the following reliefs:
      • registration of FIR against Thackeray for committing offence of sedition and causing breach of peace and public nuisance.
      • restrain Thackeray from organising press conferences on the issue of playing Hanuman Chalisa on loudspeakers.
  11. On Wednesday Chief Justice of India NV Ramana implored Senior Advocates to refrain from raising their voices or shouting while arguing in court.
    • he said, We request Senior Counsel to please not shout in court. Youngsters I can understand their anxiety, but not seniors.
    • You’re welcome to appear in court, but please don’t learn shouting.
  12. On Monday the Bombay High Court granted bail to a man from Pune accused of raping his minor niece 3 years ago.  (Balasaheb Ashok Kalbhor vs The State of Maharashtra)
    • the Court observed, The victim girl was at the verge of majority. She was college going girl thereby having sufficient ken of understanding. It is to be proved during the trial that they had physical relationship.
    • Apparently, on earlier occasions despite sexual assault, she has not disclosed the things to anybody. Therefore, there is substance in the submission that both have intimate relationship. No doubt, minor’s consent assumes no significance. However, prima facie, it is evident that it is not a case of force or use of compulsion for the alleged act.
  13. On Thursday A Gujarat court convicted Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Vadgam, Jignesh Mevani and nine others including Nationalist Congress Party’s Reshma Patel for unlawful assembly after they organised a rally without police permission in July 2017.
    • the Court observed, It is not an offence to hold rally but it is an offence to hold rally without permission.. disobedience can never be tolerated.
  14. On Thursday Facebook (now Meta Platforms) has informed the Delhi High Court that it is a private party and, therefore, the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution cannot be asserted against it.  (Wokeflix Through Megha Choubey v. Union of India and Ors)
  15. On Thursday A three-month-old toddler has moved the Delhi High court seeking right to maternal care after his mother was denied maternal leave by her employer, North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC). (TJ v. NDMC & Ors)
    • There is urgency in the matter, especially because at his tender age the petitioner suffers irreparably when with each passing day he is deprived of his mother’s care.
    • argued his plea, Petitioner is solely dependent on the mother’s feed for his survival and his rights are violated for no fault of him being the third child.
    • The rule stipulates, A female government servant (including an apprentice) with less than two surviving children may be granted maternity leave by an authority competent to grant leave for a period of 180 days from the date of its commencement.
    • The Court order, The petitioner is three months old. He asserts his rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India to care by his parents. He being the third child of his parents is deprived of the maternal care from his mother because she — a government employee — has been denied maternal leave by her employer North Delhi Municipal Corporation.
    • directed the Bench, They seek and are granted one last opportunity to file the same within two weeks, subject to payment of costs of ₹25,000 to be deposited with the Deputy Conservator of Forests(South), GNCTD.
    •  the order added, Each tree shall have a minimum of two-years’ nursery-age and a trunk height of six feet. A compliance affidavit, along with photographs showing before and after plantation status of the land/area, shall be filed both by the DCF and by the respondents.
  16. On Thursday the Supreme Court held that if possession of property is delivered in terms of a sale agreement, then the possession is in part-performance of the agreement and protected in terms of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.  (Santaram Dewangan v. Shivprasad)
    • the Court said in its order, As per plaintiff himself, the possession was delivered to the defendant in pursuance of an agreement of sale executed on July 16, 1997. Therefore, the possession of the defendant is in part performance of the agreement and is protected in terms of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The High Court non-suited the appellant on the ground that the defendant-appellant has raised a plea of adverse possession but such plea has to be examined keeping in view the case set up by the plaintiff that the possession of the defendant was in pursuance of the agreement to the sale executed.
    • the Supreme court said, The High Court has erred in law in decreeing the suit though the entire sale consideration stands paid to the plaintiff and also the possession in pursuance of the agreement of sale executed.
  17. On Thursday the Supreme Court paved way for release of Amitabh Bachchan starrer ‘Jhund‘ on over the top (OTT) platform, by staying a status quo order of the Telangana High Court.
  18. On Thursday the Kerala High Court declined to order a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the murder of a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh member, A Sanjith.  (S Arshika v State of Kerala)
  19. The Supreme Court will hear on May 10 arguments on whether the petitions challenging validity of sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has to be referred to a Constitution Bench.
  20. On Thursday A special court in Mumbai convicted a 26-year-old man for offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act for sexually assaulting and impregnating a 15-year-old.  (The State of Maharashtra vs Rohit Chandrakant Jadhav)
    • From the cross-examination of the victim, it is clear that she was having love affair with the accused and the sexual relations were consensual. However, it is already proved that the victim was minor at the time of incident…if, a person commits penetrative sexual assault on a child then, the offence is made out and there is no need to prove that the accused had no knowledge of the juvenility of the victim.
    • As the presumption remain un-rebutted, inference required to be drawn that accused has committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon victim, a minor aged 15 years 8 months on more than one occasion.
    • He was sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹5,000 out of which ₹3,000 was directed to be paid to the minor girl as compensation.
  21. On Thursday National Investigation Agency (NIA) has told a Mumbai court, Bhima Koregaon accused Anand Teltumbde’s international visits were to further Communist Party of India (Maoist) activities.  (Sudhir Dhawale & Ors. v. NIA)
  22. On Wednesday the Supreme Court listed for final disposal all challenges to the constitutional validity of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021.

Legal Prudent Fraternity