Weekend Legal Updates

Saturday & Sunday, 30th April & 1st May 2022



Article – 303  Restrictions on the legislative powers of the Union and of the States with regard to trade and commerce.

(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 302, neither Parliament nor the Legislature of a State shall have power to make any law giving, or authorising the giving of, any preference to one State over another, or making, or authorising the making of, any discrimination between one State and another, by virtue of any entry relating to trade and commerce in any of the Lists in the Seventh Schedule.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall prevent Parliament from making any law giving, or authorising the giving of, any preference or making, or authorising the making of, any discrimination if it is declared by such law that it is necessary to do so for the purpose of dealing with a situation arising from scarcity of goods in any part of the territory of India.

Weekend Legal Updates :-

  1. On Friday a petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking a free and fair investigation by a court-monitored special investigation team (SIT) into the demolition of properties of suspected rioters in the Khargone district of Madhya Pradesh.  (Raziya Mansoori & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.)
  2. The Karnataka High Court granted bail to Madhukar G Angur, the ex Chancellor of Alliance University in a money laundering case of ₹107 crore.  (Dr. Madhukar G Angur v. Enforcement of Directorate)
    • On perusal of the materials on record, since the Directorate of Enforcement has already seized necessary documents and also taken control over the assets of the petitioner, apprehension of the prosecution that release of the accused may result in continuation of the money laundering, in the considered opinion of this court is not available in the case on hand. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail.
    • Therefore, even though there is no specific time limit prescribed under the Act for filing complaint/final report as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act, whenever a person is arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement under the provisions by resorting to the powers vested in it under Section 19 of the Act, the Directorate of Enforcement is expected to file a complaint/final report within 60 days from the date of arrest. In the event of failure to do so, indefeasible right is definitely to accrue to an accused under the Act.
    • the attachment of the property and its confirmation though is part of the same investigation, it is not for the purpose of filing a complaint under Section 45 of the Act and it is for the purpose of attachment of the property. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the investigation would not be complete so as to make available a right to the petitioner for statutory bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC.
    • The language employed in Section 45(1) of the Act is in the form of twin conditions akin to the language employed by the legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
    • the High Court opined, Having regard to the language employed in Section 45(2), there is an embargo on the powers of this court to exercise the special powers vested in this court under Section 439 CrPC.
    • In the light of legal principles enunciated in the judgements…. and taking note of the fact that the Directorate of Enforcement has already collected necessary materials to form an opinion that the petitioner is prima facie guilty of the offences alleged against him, is only for the purpose of effecting the arrest under Section 19 of the Act.
  3. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana and Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju held a joint press conference on Saturday to discuss the developments that took place at the joint conference of Chief Justices and Chief Ministers.
    • The CJI informed the attendees that the status of the 2016 conference’s resolutions was discussed, along with the national judicial infrastructure, appointment of district judges. He also said that unanimous resolutions were passed.
    • The Law Minister, on the other hand, said that Chief Justices and Chief Ministers participated in a free and fair manner and issues including judicial appointments were discussed.
    • The CJI began by stating that there was a unanimous agreement on the need to improve judicial infrastructure. He also said that the Chief Ministers had requested infrastructure fund from the Central government.
    • State provide apt benefits to retired judicial officers. For High Court officers, all constitutional authority to strictly adhere to the timelines laid down for appointments.
    • In terms of legal aid, he pointed to the vision document released by the legal services committee. The document- “a vision for the future” was released by CJI NV Ramana.
    • The document was conceptualised by Justice AM Khanwilkar and it provides a road map for modernisation and capacity building of Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC) and interfacing with other legal services committees pan India for achieving the motto, “Access to Justice for all”.
    • the CJI stated, All Chief Ministers expressed issues of network connectivity. So resolution is Centre will provide adequate IT infrastructure and States will maintain it. States will also maintain IT manpower and provide funds to meet digitisation needs.
  4. Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court the dispute between the Central and Delhi governments relating to transfers and postings of officers in Delhi and administrative control over such officers should be decided by a Constitution Bench.  (Govt of NCT of Delhi vs Union of India)
    • Mehta said, The same involves a substantial question of law, both by way of constitutional significance as well as larger public interest, and the same is not an ancillary or incidental issue, thus, meriting a reference to a Constitution Bench in terms of Article 145(3) of the Constitution.
    • Senior Lawyer Dr. Abhishekh Manu Singhvi for the Delhi government had argued that if a State cannot even transfer or manage posting of its own officers then how will it exert control over its workers.
    • Singhvi said, Existence of a substantial question of law does not weigh on stakes of the case. Here there is a constitution bench judgment already. There has been 6 requests for adjournment and now they want ref to larger bench.
  5. On Friday the Delhi High Court refused to set aside the order of a special CBI court framing charges of cheating, corruption and criminal conspiracy against Commonwealth Games scam accused VK Verma.  (VK Verma v Central Bureau of Investigation)
    • the order said, It adds to the deprivation of the poor and weaker sections of the society. Therefore, every effort should be made to eradicate the same. At the end of the day, it is society and the downtrodden who bear the pangs of the corrupt acts of a few. If the court below finds that evidence against an accused is prima facie sufficient for framing of charge, then it has the jurisdiction to proceed with the same concerned accused must face trial.
    • the Court said, Considering the aforesaid, a prima facie case against the petitioner cannot be ruled out.
    • By the instant petition, rather than pointing out patent irregularities, the petitioner is asking the revisional court to critically examine and analyse the evidence on record which is a matter of trial and cannot be examined at this stage. The petitioner has been unable to satisfy why this court should use its revisionary jurisdiction and quash the charges framed against the petitioner.
  6. On Saturday the Mumbai Sessions Court reserved its verdict in the bail pleas filed by Member of Parliament Naveent Rana, and her husband and Member of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Ravi Rana, the verdict will be pronounced on 2nd May, seeking bail in the sedition case registered against them.
  7. On Saturday Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana said that the Chief Ministers of various states have assured him that necessary steps will be taken to address concerns about security at various district courts across the country.
  8. On Saturday Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana said Public interest litigation (PIL) petitions are used to settle political scores, stall projects and presssurise public authorities.
  9. On Saturday Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi said in an attempt to bring law to common masses, the Central government has constituted a committee to examine simplifying law and statutes so that it can be understood by layperson.
  10. On Saturday Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana said decisions rendered by courts are often not implemented by government for years together leading to contempt of court petitions piling up in court.
  11. On Saturday the Delhi High Court judge has decided to hold court virtually after having tested positive for Covid-19.
  12. The Bombay High Court allowed two prisoners sentenced to death in 2017 for raping and murdering a young girl, to continue their education through open universities during incarceration.  (Nitin Gopinath Bhailume and Anr. vs The State of Maharashtra)

Legal Prudent Fraternity