Today’s Legal Updates

Tuesday, 8th February 2022

Legal Awareness :- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

PART II CITIZENSHIP

Article – 10 Continuance of the rights of citizenship

Every person who is or is deemed to be a citizen of India under any of the foregoing provisions of this Part shall, subject to the provisions of any law that may be made by Parliament, continue to be such citizen.

Today’s Legal Updates:-

  1. Today the Kerala High Court upheld the decision of the Union Ministry of Information & Broadcasting to revoke the licence of Malayalam news channel MediaOne.  (Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v Union of India & Ors)
  2. A Bill to set up a National Law University (NLU) in Tripura is set to be tabled before the State Legislative Assembly.
  3. Grab the opportunity to be mentored by the Partners of Top Law Firms including Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co, Khaitan & Co, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas & Latham & Watkins, London who have come on board with Bettering Results (BR) to mentor law students and lawyers on making a career in “Arbitration”, one of the most important forms of alternative dispute resolution.
    • https://betteringresults.in/
  4. Today the Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to the director of a company who had been accused of abetting the suicide of one of his employees.  (Dr. Surendra Manjrekar v. State of Maharashtra with connected plea)
  5. Today the Delhi High Court asked former District and Sessions Judge Sujata Kohli to place on record CCTV footage and recording of proceedings before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) Court in the case against former Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) President Rajiv Khosla.  (Sujata Kohli v Rajiv Khosla)
  6. The Special Court under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act has allowed the investigating agency 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.
  7. Today the Supreme Court will hear the plea regarding the deadline for application of National Eligibility cum Entrance Test post graduate exam 2022 (NEET PG 2022) and for completion of internship (to be eligible for making such application).
    • the plea filed through advocate Charu Mathur said, “When the candidates made informal enquiries from the colleges regarding the internship extension date for next year and whether the same will affect the registration for NEET-PG 2022, they were given an oral assurance by the colleges that the same will not clash with registration requirement for NEET-PG 2022-23. However, on January 15, 2022, the candidates were shocked to note that they will not be able to register for one (1) year compulsory internship on or before 31st May 2022, as required under Clause 4.1 of the Information Bulletin,”
    • in a petition regarding the deadline for completion of internship to be eligible for applying for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test post graduate exam 2022 (NEET PG 2022), the Supreme Court granted petitioners leave to approach the Central government for postponement of the same.
  8. Amid the uproar over the restriction on Muslim girl students from wearing hijab (headscarves) to colleges in Karnataka, the State government has told the Karnataka High Court that it is not interfering with religious beliefs, and that educational institutions are not places to profess any particular religion. (Ayesha Hajeera Almas v. Chief Secretary
  9. Today the Bombay High Court issued notice to Maharashtra Cabinet Minister Nawab Malik, seeking a response as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for an alleged breach of the undertaking given in the plea filed by the father of IRS officer Sameer Wankhede.
  10. The Karnataka High Court is hearing four petitions against action of educational institutions stopping female Muslim students from attending classes on the ground that they wear a hijab (headscarf). The petitions argue that the institutions are discriminating against the petitioners and other female Muslim students by denying them entry on the sole ground of them wearing a hijab.
  11. Today the Karnataka High Court appealed to the student community and the public at large to maintain peace and tranquillity in the wake of protests against a government order which effectively bans the wearing of hijab (headscarves) by Muslim students.  (Ayesha Hajeera Almas v. Chief Secretary)
  12. Today the Supreme Court accepted the settlement reached between Adani Power (Mundra) Limited and the Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (GUVNL) in relation to the claim of ₹10,000 crore arising from termination of a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between the two.  (Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Adani Power (Mundra) Limited)
  13. All pending cases in the Amazon-Future Group dispute will now be heard by Justice C Hari Shankar of the Delhi High Court.  (Future Retail Limited v. Amazon.com NV Investment Holding LLC and Ors)
  14. Today the Supreme Court observed that relatives of the husband cannot be forced to undergo trial for the offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code based on omnibus allegations of dowry harassment by the wife.  (Kahkashan Kausar vs State of Bihar)
    • “General and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged,”
    • The top court was dealing with an appeal against a Patna High Court judgment which had refused to quash a first information report (FIR) against the in-laws under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 379 (theft), 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) of IPC.
    • the Court noted, “The complainant alleged that ‘all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy’. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them,” 
  15. Today the Bombay High Court emphasised the importance of examining minor victims of offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) expeditiously.  (Atul Gorakhnath Ambale v. State of Maharashtra)
    • “In cases where the victims are minor, POCSO Courts should at least complete the examination of the victim/prosecutrix, as expeditiously as possible, lest the victims who are minor forget the incident, due to passage of time, giving advantage to the accused,”
    • In the present application, the accused pointed out that there had been no progress in the trial, and that he was HIV positive and required medical assistance.
  16. Today the Supreme Court held that the act of inserting a finger into the vagina of a minor girl would amount to an offence of ‘penetrative sexual assault’ under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).  (Nawabuddin vs State of Uttarakhand)
    • the girl is under 12 years, then the offence would be of ‘aggravated penetrative sexual assault’
    • the Court held, “In the present case, it has been established and proved that the accused penetrated his finger in the vagina and because of that the victim girl felt pain and irritation in urination as well as pain on her body and there was redness and swelling around the vagina found by the doctor. We are of the opinion that therefore the case would fall under Section 3(b) of the POCSO Act and it can be said to be penetrative sexual assault and considering Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act as such penetrative sexual assault was committed on a girl child aged four years (below twelve years) the same can be said to be ‘aggravated penetrative sexual assault’ punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act,” 
    • the Court stated, “In our country, a girl child is in a very vulnerable position…..There are different modes of her exploitation, including sexual assault and/or sexual abuse. In our view, exploitation of children in such a manner is a crime against humanity and the society. Therefore, the children and more particularly the girl child deserve full protection and need greater care and protection whether in the urban or rural areas,” 
    • the judgment said, “By awarding a suitable punishment commensurate with the act of sexual assault, sexual harassment, a message must be conveyed to the society at large that, if anybody commits any offence under the POCSO Act of sexual assault, sexual harassment or use of children for pornographic purposes they shall be punished suitably and no leniency shall be shown to them,” 
  17. Today the Supreme Court came down on Amazon’s counsel for seeking to file further written submissions in a matter already reserved for orders.
  18. Today the Karnataka High Court has sought suggestions and recommendations to reform its administrative work through the use of modern technology, with an emphasis on the reduction of paperwork.
  19. Today the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court observed that consent of a minor, obtained either by threat or otherwise, has no value in the eyes of law while rejecting bail plea of a person accused of raping a minor girl.  (Peer Mohammad Ghotu Mohd. Ismail v. State of Maharashtra & Anr)
  20. Today the Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea filed by Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan seeking interim bail to campaign for the upcoming Uttar Pradesh assembly elections.  (Mohd. Azam Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh)
  21. Today the Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the name of advocate Harish Kumar for appointment as a judge of the Patna High Court.
  22. Today the Kerala High Court initiated a suu motu case based on a news report which appeared in Malayalam daily Kerala Kaumudi alleging that devotees at Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, Tripunithura are made to wash the feet of twelve brahmins as atonement for their sins.
  23. Today the Supreme Court observed that it cannot transfer consumer complaints filed under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to High Court.  (YES Bank Limited v. 63 Moons Technologies Limited and Others)
  24. Today the Calcutta High Court permanently injuncted four advertisements by the makers of Baidyanath Chyawanprash Special for being disparaging to all other brands including Dabur Chyawanprash.  (Dabur India Limited v. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt Ltd)

Legal Prudent Fraternity