Today’s Legal Updates

Wednesday, 6th June 2022

Legal Awareness :- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Part – V THE UNION

CHAPTER- I THE EXECUTIVE (The President and Vice-President)

Article – 56  Term of office of President

  1. The President shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office:
    Provided that—
    1. the President may, by writing under his hand addressed to the Vice-President, resign his office;
    2. the President may, for violation of the Constitution, be removed from office by impeachment in the manner provided in article 61;
    3. the President shall, notwithstanding the expiration of his term, continue to hold office until his successor enters upon his office.
  2. Any resignation addressed to the Vice-President under clause (a) of the proviso to clause (1) shall forthwith be communicated by him to the Speaker of the House of the People.

Today’s Legal Updates :-

  1. On Wednesday the Delhi Police has moved the Delhi High Court challenging the special court order granting bail to Congress councilor Ishrat Jahan in a case related to North-East Delhi riots of February 2020.
    • the plea, It is also pertinent to note here that that the said riots did not occur in the spur of moment or due to fit of communal anger but was pre-planned in multi-layered, multi-organizational fashion.
    • the Court said, All the preparation of riots such as stocking of arms, stones etc were done in advance and upon the arrival of the American president under a deep-rooted conspiracy operating on various levels, in guise and under the cloak of right to protest disruptive chakka jam were organized, people from a particular community were gathered, indoctrinated, mislead by instilling fear in them that they would lose their citizenship if CAA was implemented and thus a super charged environment was created which forced the innocent to take arms into their hands.
  2. On Tuesday the Kerala High Court observed that it cannot hold that a Muslim woman can be guardian of her minor child’s property since it is bound by the precedents of the Supreme Court to the contrary.  (C Abdul Aziz & Ors. v Chembukandy Safiya & Ors.)
    • the Court held in its judgment, That being the position, as the Shariat Act has been held to be not a State legislation, it cannot be tested on the anvil of Articles 14 or Article 15 of the Constitution as argued on behalf of the appellants.
    • the Court said, It is no doubt true that in this modern age, women have scaled heights and have slowly but steadily stormed several male bastions. As pointed out, many Islamic countries or Muslim dominated countries have women as their heads of State. Women have been part of expeditions to the space too…Be that as it may, this court is bound by the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
    • Does the Qur’an or Hadith specifically prohibit or bar a mother from being guardian of her minor child’s person and property? Article 13 of the Constitution says laws cannot be inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights. If that be so, will not prohibiting a Muslim mother from being guardian of her minor child’s person and property, be violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution? If it is violative, can the court interfere to set right the injustice, if any, caused?“
  3. On Wednesday the Allahabad High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings against persons accused of possessing beef, and 16 live cattle without license to run a slaughter house.  (Parvez Ahmad v State of UP)
    • the High Court said, The dictum of Apex Court is that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be invoked in exceptional cases where no offence is made out or the allegation in the report on face of it does not constitute any offence then such proceedings can be quashed.
    • the single-judge observe, In the present case, the applicants had tried to set up defence by bringing on record the report of FSL, but the First Information Report not only discloses the recovery of the cow meat but also 16 live cattle stocks along with other incriminating material.
    • the Court held, The defence so raised by the applicants will be considered by the trial court and such defence set up in the present application cannot be considered by this Court at this stage, at the stage of quashing of the charge sheet.
  4. Last Week the Madras High Court issued a slew of guidelines to the State government in exercise of its parens patriae jurisdiction for the regulation of old-age homes including private run homes. (S Krishnamurthy v Dr Manivasan)
    • the bench said, And going by that standard, it would not be an exaggeration to State that we, as a society, have failed in measuring up to the expectation of our ancestors and elders.
    • the bench said, In any case, this court is embarking on the journey to safeguard the interests of elderly and senior citizens with the fervent hope that the Indian society will realize its moral duties towards its elders.
    • the Court said, As already stated, the impugned order was passed in pursuance of the orders of this Court and the earlier PIL which brought to light the prevailing sorry state of affairs about the dismal quality of life being led by the senior citizens of this country.
    • the Court noted, On the contrary, senior citizens being one of the vulnerable sections of society need utmost care and protection by the State.
    • They must be read harmoniously as the object of the laws are obviously different and have been made pursuant to different fields of legislation, with no apparent conflict or repugnancy between the two.
  5. On Wednesday the Delhi High Court asked the authorities to explore the possibility of importing a female African elephant to give company to the lone male African elephant kept in Delhi zoo.
    • A Division Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad also directed the Central Zoo Authority (CZA) and the Animal Welfare Board to jointly conduct an inspection and submit a detailed report about the elephant.
    • the plea further said, Shankar’s psychologically distressed circumstances have steered him into aggressive behavior with not only visitors and other animals but also his caretaker.
  6. On Wednesday the Bombay High Court paved way for release of the Bollywood film Khuda Haafiz 2 after assurance from the producers that the changes as suggested by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) will be carried out before release on 8th July 2022.
    • Petitioner states that film to be released hurts religious sentiments of petitioner and depicts their religious acts of Muharram rituals in a bad taste because of which the petitioners and the community sentiments are hurt.
  7. On Monday the Delhi High Court stayed a lower court’s order granting bail to Congress leader Sajjan Kumar in a rioting and murder case connected with the 1984 riots.
    • the court said in its order, In view of the above, let the notice of this petition be issued to the respondent through all modes returnable on 15.07.2022 and till then the impugned order dated 27.04.2022 shall remain stayed.
  8. On Monday the Kerala High Court directed the Education Department to ensure installation of drop boxes for students to submit complaints anonymously in all schools in the State.  (Faizal Kulappadam @ Faizal N v State of Kerala)
    •  the judgment, In the light of the above circulars extracted supra, we are of the view that wherever the drop boxes have not been installed, the same have to be done in all Government/aided and unaided schools, as expeditiously as possible. In addition to the above, we direct all the Deputy Director of Education, all the Regional Deputy Director of Education (HSE Section), all the Assistant Directors (VHSE Section) and all the District/Assistant Educational Officers to send periodical report to the Director of General Education, Thiruvananthapuram, setting out the nature of complaints and finality of the same.
  9. On Wednesday Twitter has moved the Karnataka High Court challenging blocking orders issued by the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY).
    • The ten blocking orders in question, which were issued between February 2021 and February 2022, directed Twitter to block certain information from access to the public, and to suspend several accounts. The blocking orders issued by the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) have been submitted to the High Court via sealed covers marked as annexures A to K.
    • The petition also states that the orders in question are manifestly arbitrary, and procedurally and substantively not in consonance with Section 69A of the IT Act. Further, they fail to comply with the procedures and safeguards prescribed by the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (Blocking Rules).
    • Blocking Orders to withhold access to the entire account cannot be issued without providing cogent reasons as to why such account level blocking in necessary or expedient…account level blocking is a disproportionate measure and violates rights of users under the Constitution.
  10. On Wednesday the Delhi High Court directed the Delhi government to ensure that the girls studying in schools in the national capital get uninterrupted supply of sanitary napkins.
    • A Division Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad passed the direction while disposing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against non-distribution of sanitary napkins to girls under the Kishori Yojana.
    • It was stated that the Department of Education (DOE) had formulated and adopted the scheme under which girl students were provided napkins to maintain hygiene and health. However, the scheme, the PIL said, was stopped in January 2021 putting the students at great inconvenience.
  11. On Monday A Mumbai Court recorded the statement of actress Kangana Ranaut in her complaint against Javed Akhtar where she alleged that Akhtar threatened and insulted her after she refused to apologise to Hrithik Roshan and thus committed the offence of extortion.
    • Ranaut sought issuance of process against Akhtar under Sections 383, 384, 387 (extortion), 503, 506 (criminal intimidation) and 509 (outraging modesty of woman) of the Indian Penal Code.
  12. On Wednesday A local court in Chandigarh has extended the judicial custody of Kalyani Singh, the daughter of Himachal Pradesh High Court judge, Justice Sabina in the 2015 Sippy Sidhu murder.
  13. On Wednesday the Kerala High Court issued notice to former Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA), PC George, in a plea seeking to cancel the bail granted to him by a Magistrate on July 2, 2022 in a sexual harassment case.
  14. On Wednesday the Kerala High Court held that Magistrate courts are required to apply its mind while taking cognizance of offences or ordering investigation into any cognizable case.  (Jibin Joseph v Union territory of Lakshadweeo & Anr.)
    • the Court said, The Magistrate/Court should not adopt the easy way of forwarding the complaint unmindful of the consequences of forwarding such complaints. The Magistrate/Court is not merely functioning as a “post office” in forwarding anything and everything filed in the form of a complaint.
    • the judgment said, The Magistrate/Court has a duty to protect the interest of the accused also since, at the time of conducting inquiry or forwarding of the complaint to the police under S.156(3) Cr.P.C, the accused does not get any right of hearing.
    • The plea sought quashing of an order of a Sessions Court directing the police to investigate a complaint registered against the petitioner under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (JJ Act).
  15. On Wednesday the Supreme Court dismissed a plea filed by the Goa government against a strongly-worded judgment of the Bombay High Court that had quashed the decision of State of Goa to postpone elections to 186 panchayats in the State.  (State of Goa and anr vs Sandeep Vazarkar & Ors)
    • the Supreme Court directed, we find no reason to consider interference in the impugned order dated 28.06.2022 as passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa … [or] to interfere in the process of elections. However, in interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to observe that in case of any difficulty, it would be open for the State Election Commission to approach the High Court for necessary directions.
    • the judgment had said, This is the fourth instance in the last two decades when the State Government and the SEC have avoided or failed to comply with the constitutional mandate in Article 243E. The delay and consequent defiance of the constitutional mandate have become a regular feature.
  16. On Wednesday the Supreme Court upheld a Kerala High Court order granting anticipatory bail to Malayalam cine actor Vijay Babu who has been booked in a rape case.
    • the Court ordered, We decline to interfere with Kerala HC order. Except that we modify the part on interrogation. we make it clear that the petitioner may be interrogated beyond July 3, 2022, if necessary.
  17. On Wednesday the Supreme Court was stayed a Madras High Court order preventing the general council of All-India Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) from amending its bye-laws.
    • the Court directed, it is considered appropriate and hence ordered and observed as under:- a. Operation and effect of the impugned order dated 23.06.2022 shall remain stayed.
    • the plea said, It is well settled that in the matters pertaining to the internal affairs of a political party is not interfered with by the Courts … the Courts cannot insist the members to act in a particular manner.
    • the Bench remarked, The single-judge refused to give interim relief for a reason. Can we pass order directing them how to conduct meeting? … Who wants to do what within the party forum is essentially within that compact only. Jurisdiction of appellate court is there, we’re not overturning that …These things have to be worked out internally.
  18. On Monday the Delhi High Court expressed its displeasure over the “disturbing trend” of subordinate courts entertaining bail applications despite the pendency of similar proceedings before higher courts.  (Shiv Lingam v. State)
    • the order stated, As such, judicial wisdom forecasts a duty on concerned court to make enquiry as to pending bail application, if any, with courts in hierarchy or rejection of any bail application by higher court, to avoid any miscarriage of justice. The consideration of bail application by subordinate court despite pendency of an application with the higher court or without consideration of grounds rejection of earlier application by higher courts, may be an utter disregard to judicial discipline.
    • It may also be observed that if the record of earlier orders rejecting the bail application is concealed by the petitioner, then inevitably the Judicial Officer concerned may remain under an impression that no bail application had been considered earlier by any court. In the aforesaid eventuality, since the fraud vitiates all proceedings, the consideration of the bail application, would be no exception.
  19. The Advocates’ Association, Bengaluru has issued a statement in support of Justice HP Sandesh of the Karnataka High Court, who revealed in open court that he received threats of a transfer for monitoring certain cases being handled by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) of the State.
    • the statement said, The Advocates Association expresses serious concern and deep regret that there are external forces and forces within the judiciary influencing judicial decisions. A judge’s decision must inspire the deepest faith in the system and most not be open to questions and doubt.
    • Justice Sandesh had said, Your ADGP so powerful (unclear). Some persons spoke to one of our High Court judges. That judge came and sat with me and he said giving an example of transferring of one of the judges to some other district. I will not hesitate to mention the name of the judge also! He came and sat by the side of me and there is a threat to this Court.
    • This should not happen. I will record the same in the order itself. You people are encouraging such people – State government as well as…..You are here to protect the institution. Not to do all these things.
  20. On Wednesday Zee Hindustan anchor Rohit Ranjan has approached the Supreme Court against the Chhattisgarh Police action in relation the channel’s false broadcast against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi.
  21. On Tuesday the Kerala High Court granted bail to 31 Popular Front of India (PFI) workers arrested for allegedly raising provocative slogans and disrupting communal harmony at a rally conducted in Alappuzha district in May this year.  (Ansar & Ors. v State of Kerala)
    • the Court said in its order, The allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature. A minor boy is also alleged to have been used for shouting the provocative slogans. Notwithstanding the serious nature of the allegations, petitioners have been in detention from 24.05.2022 onwards, while the last arrest was made on 04.06.2022. Thus all the petitioners are continuing in detention atleast for more than 30 days. The investigation as far as petitioners are concerned are almost complete. The continued detention of the petitioners will not serve any further purpose, despite two accused remaining at large.
    • the judge had remarked, Are they not fostering a new generation that grows up with this religious hatred in mind? I was just wondering about the fact that when this child grows and he becomes a major, his mind will already be conditioned to this kind of rhetoric. Something must be done.
    • the Court had said in that judgment, If a member of a rally raises provocative slogans, the persons who organize the rally is also responsible. If a rally is conducted, it is the duty of the leaders to control the members of the rally.
  22. Last Week A Magistrate court in Goa’s Panaji granted bail to Nationalist Congress Party’s (NCP) student wing president Sonia Doohan who was arrested by Goa police after she allegedly impersonated another person to stay at the resort where the rebel Shiv Sena MLAs, who had fled from Maharashtra, were staying.  (Sonia Doohan vs State of Goa)
    • the order said, The bail application is opposed on vague grounds such as that Applicant the Applicant has political background and she may threaten the witnesses and abscond. It is also stated that the address and the antecedents of the Applicant are yet to be verified and her identity has to be established. Such vague pleas cannot be the ground for rejecting the bail application.

Legal Prudent Fraternity