Today Legal Updates

Saturday, 8th October 2022

Legal Awareness :- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Part – Vl THE STATES

CHAPTER- II  THE EXECUTIVE

The Governor

Article – 157 Qualifications for appointment as Governor

No person shall be eligible for appointment as Governor unless he is a citizen of India and has completed the age of thirty-five years.

Article – 158 Conditions of Governor’s office

  1. The Governor shall not be amember of either House of Parliament or of a House of the Legislature of any State specified in the First Schedule, and if a member of either House of Parliament or of a House of the Legislature of any such State be appointed Governor, he shall be deemed to have vacated his seat in that House on the date on which he enters upon his office as Governor.
  2. The Governor shall not hold any other office of profit.
  3. The Governor shall be entitled without payment of rent to the use of his official residences and shall be also entitled to such emoluments, allowances and privileges as may be determined by Parliament by law and, until provision in that behalf is so made, such emoluments, allowances and privileges as are specified in the Second Schedule.
    (3A) Where the same person is appointed as Governor of two or more States, the emoluments and allowances payable to the Governor shall be allocated among the States in such proportion as the President may by order determine.
  4. The emoluments and allowances of the Governor shall not ben diminished during his term of office.

Today’s Legal Updates :-

  1. On Saturday the Election Commission of India (ECI) passed an interim order restraining both Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde camps from using the ‘Shiv Sena’ party name and the bow and arrow symbol until the poll body decides which among the two rival factions can actually lay claim to the party name and symbol.
    • The order was passed by Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar and Election Commissioner Anup Chandra Pandey.
      • Neither of the two groups led by Sh. Eknathrao Sambhaji Shinde (Petitioner) and other led by Sh. Uddhav Thackeray (Respondent) be permitted to use the name of the party “Shivsena” simplicitor;
      • Neither of the two groups shall also be permitted to use the symbol “Bow & Arrow”, reserved for “Shivsena.
    •  it further said, Both the groups shall also be allotted such different symbols as they may choose from the list of free symbols notified by the Election Commission for the purposes of the current bye-elections.
  2. The Supreme Court asked the the Bar Council of India (BCI) to ensure swift disposal of cases transferred to it from State Bar Councils and relating to complaints by litigants against lawyers.  (Charanjeet Singh Chanderpal vs Vasant D Salunkhe and ors)
    • the Court said, To have the discipline and maintain the purity of the profession the complaints made by the concerned litigants are required to be dispose of at the earliest so that the litigants may continue to have the faith in the profession and in its system.
    • that judgment had said, we direct the Bar Council of India to finally dispose of the transferred complaints, the particulars of which are referred to hereinabove expeditiously but not later than one year from today and for which even the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India may hold circuit hearings … We also direct the respective State Bar Councils to decide and dispose of the complaint(s) received by it under Section 35 expeditiously and to conclude the same within a 2 period of one year from the date of receipt of the complaint as mandated under Section 36B of the Advocates Act.
  3. The Supreme Court asked the the Bar Council of India (BCI) to ensure swift disposal of cases transferred to it from State Bar Councils and relating to complaints by litigants against lawyers.  (Charanjeet Singh Chanderpal vs Vasant D Salunkhe and ors)
    • the Court said, To have the discipline and maintain the purity of the profession the complaints made by the concerned litigants are required to be dispose of at the earliest so that the litigants may continue to have the faith in the profession and in its system.
      • The observations were made in the context of the Constitutionality of Section 497 and how the provision was rooted in the treatment of women as ‘property’ or ‘chattel’ of husbands, thereby recognising only the husband as the ‘aggrieved party’ who was entitled to initiate prosecution for an offence under the said provision.
      • the observations were in the context of whether adultery can be a criminal offence considering the fact that the provision which criminalised adultery was based on Victorian morals which recognised a wife as her husband’s property.
    2. The Kerala High Court observed that an allegation of rape on false promise to marry, will not stand if the woman knew that the man was already married and still continued the sexual relationship with the accused.  (Sreekanth Sasidharan v State of Kerala & Anr.)
      • the order said. The admitted fact that the 4th respondent is having a relationship with the petitioner since 2010 and she continued the relationship knowing about his marriage from 2013 onwards would nullify the story regarding the sexual intercourse on the false pretext of marrying her. The alleged sex can only be termed as one on account of love and passion for the petitioner and not on account of misrepresentation made to her by the petitioner.
    3. The Kerala High Court has initiated suo motu contempt of court proceedings against film director Baiju Kottarakkara for his remarks against the trial judge hearing the actress assault case.
      • The respondent is not personally present despite receipt of notice. Under such circumstances, post on 10.10.2022 as a last chance for the personal appearance of the respondent.
      • The Kerala High Court had recently dismissed a plea moved by the survivor in the 2017 actress assault case to transfer the trial from the Principle Sessions Court, Ernakulam to any other Sessions Court, on the ground of apprehensions of bias on the part of the Sessions judge.
      • In 2017, several persons including Malayalam cine actor Dileep were arrested and charged with various offenses under the IPC, including Sections 366 (kidnapping), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and 376D (gangrape).
      • The survivor had first approached the Court seeking a female sessions judge which was allowed by the Court. She then approached the Court seeking to transfer the trial, alleging bias on the part of the Sessions judge, citing the resignation of a Public Prosecutor over some comments the judge had allegedly made. This was dismissed by the Court.
    4. The Supreme Court held that an able-bodied husband is duty-bound to maintain his wife and minor child even by doing physical labour and he cannot shirk that responsibility saying he has no source of income.  (Anuj Garg and Another v. Deepak Kumar Garg)
      • the Court said, It is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute.
      • It is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children.
      • the top court said, The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute.
      • The respondent being an able-bodied, he is obliged to earn by legitimate means and maintain his wife and the minor child. Having regard to the evidence of the appellant-wife before the Family Court, and having regard to the other evidence on record, the Court has no hesitation in holding that though the respondent had sufficient source of income and was able-bodied, had failed and neglected to maintain the appellants.

    Legal Prudent Fraternity