Today’s Legal Updates

Wednesday, 9th February 2022

Legal Awareness :- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

PART II CITIZENSHIP

Article – 11 Parliament to regulate the right of citizenship by law

Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Part shall derogate from the power of Parliament to make any provision with respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship.

Today’s Legal Updates:-

  1. Today the Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to Mamata Banerjee’s election agent SK Supiyan in a murder case being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).  (SK Supiyan @ Suffiyan @ Supisan v. Central Bureau of Investigation)
  2. Today the Supreme Court issued notice to Future Retail Ltd in Amazon’s challenge to the Delhi High Court order staying proceedings before a Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) tribunal in relation to the e-commerce giant’s 2019 deal with Future Retail.  (Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings v. Future Retail Limited)
  3. The Karnataka High Court declined to quash the chargesheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) CS Puttaraju, for allegedly securing a site from the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) by abusing his position as a MUDA member and MLA.
  4. Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited, the parent company of the banned MediaOne news channel, has filed an appeal before a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court challenging a recent order of the single-judge upholding the ban imposed by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B Ministry) on the channel.
  5. Today the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court acquitted 20 persons accused of murder observing that the testimonies of the eyewitnesses were almost identical which was humanly impossible.  (Komal Babusingh Ade & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & connected appeals)
  6. Today the Bombay High Court is set to examine a question of law with regard to statutory arbitration under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act (MSMEDA) for companies undergoing insolvency proceedings.  (Anuj Bajpai & Anr. v. Insteel Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.)
  7. Today Supreme Court judge Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul expressed his disapproval at duped investors in the Heera Gold case sending WhatsApp messages to groups of which he is a part.  (SFIO vs Heera Gold Exim)
    • The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the State of Telangana and the Serious Fraud Investigative Agency ( SFIO) in the Heera Gold case where the company is accused of collecting ₹5,600 crore deposits from investors.
    • the Court said in its order, “In the end we express concern over the investors sending WhatsApp messages to us seeking justice. We appreciate the endeavour but this is not the way to seek justice. We call upon them to refrain henceforth,”
    • the Court observed, “Two years is a long time. Obviously our sympathies will lie with the accused. So many courts have already noted that FSL labs are lacking in numbers. You are a premier investigative agency and this is the condition,”
    • “Number of courts have expressed views on inadequacy on number of forensic labs and it remains unaddressed. If the complexity of the fraud has gone up so has the technological advancement to deal with this both hardware and software,“
  8. Today the Karnataka High Court referred to a larger bench a batch of petitions filed by Muslim girl students in the State claiming that they are not being allowed to enter colleges on account of the government order which effectively bans the wearing of hijab (headscarves).
    • “They have only two months (of the academic year) left. Do not exclude them…we need to find a a way that no girl child is deprived of education…Today what is absolutely important is that peace comes, Constitutional fraternity returns to the college. No heavens will fall for two months…”
    • Wearing of head scarf (not burqa or veil) is an essential part of Islamic religion
    • Wearing of hijab is protected by right to expression under Article 19(1)(a) and can be restricted only on grounds under Article 19(6)
    • Wearing hijab is a facet of the right to privacy recognised as part of Article 21 by Puttaswamy judgment of Supreme Court
    •  Government order is outside the scope of the Karnataka Education Rules and State has no jurisdiction to issue the same.
  9. Today the Delhi High Court imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the Central government for failing to comply with its earlier orders in a case concerning serious allegations against government officers.  (Harvir Singh v. CBI)
  10. The Karnataka High Court will continue hearing a batch of four petitions moved by Muslim girl students against their colleges which have restrained them from attending classes on the ground that they wear a hijab (headscarf).  the Court urged the student community and the public at large to maintain peace and tranquillity in the wake of protests against the order.
  11. Rohan J Alva’s Liberty After Freedom, which releases on February 10, explores the origins of what is today considered the most important fundamental right in the Indian Constitution – the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21.
    • “The right to life and personal liberty, enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, is that one fundamental right which impacts the life of every single Indian, and its growing salience is represented by the fact that in recent years this right has become part of our daily conversations, in terms of the recognition of the right to privacy and the decriminalization of homosexuality. Given its high importance, I believe the story of how this right came to be and the women and men who shaped its destiny deserves to be told. Exploring its origins informs us not only of the controversies which arose at the time the Indian Constitution was crafted, but holds important lessons for the progressive realization of this right in contemporary India.”
  12. Today the Delhi High Court granted bail to a man in a bank fraud case, observing that the right to fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution will be denied and that keeping an undertrial in custody impacts his right of defence. (Vikas Chawla v. State)
  13. A Pune Court last month convicted a man accused of outraging modesty of woman after a short trial lasting only 2 days from the date of registration of the case.  (State of Maharashtra vs Sameer @ Nana Shrirang Jadhav)
    • January 24, 2022: The criminal act took place against the informant.
    • January 25, 2022: The informant registered a complaint with the Hinjewadi police station and a first information report (FIR) was registered.
    • January 26, 2022: Sameer Jadhav was arrested.
    • January 27, 2022: Charges were framed under Sections 354 (outraging modesty of woman), 452 (house-trespass), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code and after Jadhav pleaded not guilty, trial commenced.
    • The court noted that the accused had tried to threaten the complainant and a witness in the case in a manner so grievous that the complainant could not sleep the whole night.
    • the judge emphasized in his verdict, ”correct message should be sent to the society that such offences will not be weighed lightly and the wrongdoer will be punished severely,”
    • “unchallenged sole testimony of the informant is sufficient to hold the accused guilty”.
  14. Three accused in the Bhima Koregaon case of 2018 have moved the Bombay High Court seeking review of the judgment dated 1st December 2021 refusing default bail to them. (P Varavara Rao & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.)
  15. Today the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence of a man convicted for raping and killing a seven-year-old girl, to life imprisonment.  (Pappu vs State of UP)
    • the Court said, “When the appellant is not shown to be a person having criminal antecedents and is not a hardened criminal, it cannot be said that there is no probability of him being reformed and rehabilitated. His unblemished jail conduct and having a family of wife, children and aged father would also indicate towards the probability of his reformation,” 
    • the Supreme Court said, “The impugned orders awarding and confirming death sentence could only be said to be of assumptive conclusions, where it has been assumed that death sentence has to be awarded because of the ghastly crime and its abhorrent nature,” 
    • the judgment said, “When all these factors are added together and it is also visualised that there is nothing on record to rule out the probability of reformation and rehabilitation of the appellant, in our view, it would be unsafe to treat this case as falling in ‘rarest of rare’ category. Putting it differently, when the appellant is not shown to be a person having criminal antecedents and is not a hardened criminal, it cannot be said that there is no probability of him being reformed and rehabilitated. His unblemished jail conduct and having a family of wife, children and aged father would also indicate towards the probability of his reformation,”
    • the Court opined, “But principles of penology have evolved to balance the other obligations of the society, i.e., of preserving the human life, be it of accused, unless termination thereof is inevitable and is to serve the other societal causes and collective conscience of society,” 
    • the judgment said, “This has led to the evolution of ‘rarest of rare test’ and then, its appropriate operation with reference to ‘crime test’ and ‘criminal test’. The delicate balance expected of the judicial process has also led to another mid-way approach, in curtailing the rights of remission or premature release while awarding imprisonment for life, particularly when dealing with crimes of heinous nature like the present one,” 
  16. Today the Karnataka High Court permitted the Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL) to cut 138 trees and translocate 84 trees for construction of the Namma metro rail.  (Dattatraya T Devare v. State of Karnataka)
  17. A Mumbai judge has filed a complaint alleging that his debit card was cloned and money amounting to ₹1.2 lakh was withdrawn from his salary account on various dates over a one-year period. The FIR was registered under Sections 66C (identity theft) and 66D (cheating by personation by using computer resource) of the Information Technology Act and Sections 419 (cheating by personation) and 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) of the Indian Penal Code based on his allegation. These transactions were purportedly made every month since January 2021 at ATMs in various locations after the judge’s debit card was apparently copied.
  18. Today the Delhi High Court directed the Animal Welfare Board of Indian (AWBI) to conduct a survey of all circuses whose registrations are not complete, and report the status of the animals in these circuses.  (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v Union of India and Ors)

Legal Prudent Fraternity