Weekend Legal Updates

Saturday & Sunday, 23rd & 24th June 2022



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

Article – 70 Discharge of President’s functions in other contingencies.
Parliament may make such provision as it thinks fit for the discharge of the functions of the President in any contingency not provided for in this Chapter.

Article – 71 Matters relating to, or connected with, the election of a President or Vice-President.

  1. All doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with the election of a President or Vice-President shall be inquired into and decided by the Supreme Court whose decision shall be final.
  2. If the election of a person as President or Vice-President is declared void by the Supreme Court, acts done by him in the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of the office of President or Vice-President, as the case may be, on or before the date of the decision of the Supreme Court shall not be invalidated by reason of that declaration.
  3. Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may by law regulate any matter relating to or connected with the election of a President or Vice-President.
  4. The election of a person as President or Vice-President shall not be called in question on the ground of the existence of any vacancy for whateverreason among the members of the electoral college electing him.

Weekend Legal Updates :-

  1. The Allahabad High Court expressed its displeasure at minors getting married, stating that 15-16 years is not the age for young people to enter into physical relationship and get married. (Suraj v. State of UP)
  2. The Bombay High Court held that entertainment duty under the Bombay Entertainment Duty Act cannot be levied on Billiards tables at members-only clubs.  (Santacruz Gymkhana vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.)
  3. On Saturday Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana said that he was keen on joining politics during his days as a lawyer but destiny set him on a career path to become a judge.
  4. On Saturday Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana, berated media for running Kangaroo courts and conducting media trial on sub-judice matters, thereby, making the job of judges difficult and adversely affecting the justice delivery system.
  5. on Saturday Supreme Court judge Justice S Ravindra Bhat said that glass ceiling for women in legal profession is real and lack of representation of women in judiciary is a concern.
  6. The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh ordered the Government of Jammu and Kashmir to vacate a police station situated on private land, which was being occupied without payment of rent or compensation to the owner.  (Abdul Ahad Shergojry V/s State of J&K and others)
  7. The Delhi High Court said while directing Delhi Police to ensure the safety of a couple who had married against their families’ wishes, once two consenting adults decide to live together as husband and wife, nobody is entitled to interfere including their family members. (Hina and Anr v The State and Ors)
  8. The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh refused to quash the termination order issued against a judge who was involved in facilitating evasion of stamp duty to the tune of ₹32 lakh.  (Javid Ahmad Naik v State of J&K & Ors.)
  9. On Saturday a Delhi court, rejected a plea for interim bail filed by Sharjeel Imam in a case of sedition and other charges observing that though the Supreme Court had kept Section 124A (sedition) in abeyance, the case can proceed with other charges. (Sharjeel Imam v. State)
  10. Wellness Welfare Association, an association of spa owners has moved the Bombay High Court alleging that spa centres and massage parlours are being targeted subject to moral policing and raided unlawfully by police authorities without due cause, justification and sanction of law.
  11. On Friday the Supreme Court stayed a 2020 Karnataka High Court order refusing to quash proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act against Karnataka’s former Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa. (BS Yeddiyurappa v State of Karnataka)
  12. The Kerala High Court has held that every person has the right to include his/her mother’s name alone in their birth certificate and other documents.  (XXX & Anr. v Registrar of Births and Deaths & Ors.)
    • Justice PV Kunhikrishnan held that this right is owed to citizens as the State has a duty to protect all citizens, even those who may have been conceived out of wedlock or out of rape, and their right to privacy, dignity and liberty are protected.
    • the judgment, It is clear that it is the right of a person to include his mother’s name alone in the birth certificate, identity certificates and other documents. As I observed earlier, there are children of rape victims and children of unwed mothers in this country. Their right of privacy, dignity and liberty cannot be curtailed by any authority. The mental agony of such person is to be imagined by every citizen of this country while intruding into their privacy. In some cases it will be a deliberate act and in other cases it may be by mistake. But the State should protect citizens of all such kind as equal to other citizens without disclosing their identity and privacy. Otherwise, they will face unimaginable mental agonies.
    • the Court said, A child of an unwed mother is also a citizen of our country, and nobody can infringe any of his/her fundamental rights, which are guaranteed in our Constitution. He/she is a son/daughter of not only the unwed mother but this great country ‘India.
    • the Court said in its judgment, We need to live in a country where there will be no example to cite for the word “bastard” and let that word continue in the dictionary pages without getting an opportunity to give examples to the young student generation of English. The children of unwed mothers and the children of raped victim can also live in this country with the fundamental rights of privacy, liberty, and dignity. None can intrude into their personal life, and if it happens, the constitutional Court of this country will protect their fundamental rights. The Apex Court has held that a woman’s reproductive choice is a fundamental right and compassed the same under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
    • the judgment, There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to expunge and remove the name of the father from the Birth Register maintained at his office regarding the 1st petitioner and issue certificate showing the name of mother only as a single parent, if such a request is made by the petitioners.
  13. On Sunday (in a special sitting held) the Calcutta High Court allowed a plea by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to shift West Bengal minister Partha Chatterjee, accused in school jobs scam, from SSKM super speciality hospital in Calcutta to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in Orissa’s Bhubaneshwar.
    • Justice Bibek Chaudhuri allowed the plea after noting that there is a dubious record of Trinamool Congress leaders taking shelter in SSKM hospital on medical grounds when faced with interrogation by authorities.
    • the Court said, Under such background and considering the fact that the accused is the senior most Cabinet Minister in the State of West Bengal having immense power and position, it would not be impossible for the accused with the aide of other political executives to take shelter under the garb of serious illness and medical treatment to evade interrogation. If this happens, the Lady Justice will be cursed by the tears of hundreds and thousands of deserving candidates whose future was sacrificed in lieu of money.
    • the Court directed, The accused has to be taken to NSC Bose Airport, Calcutta by an ambulance of SSKM Super speciality Hospital. He will be accompanied by a doctor of SSKM Super speciality hospital and an advocate for the accused.
    • the Court said, This Court is of the view that the order passed by the learned Magistrate allowing an Advocate on behalf of the accused to remain present during his interrogation suffers from patent illegality and liable to be set aside. On this score, this Court profitably records the view of a co-ordinate Bench of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Directorate of Enforcement v. Satyendar Kumar Jain.
    • the order said, It is needless to say that the Doctors start medical treatment of the patient after taking HIPPOCRATIC OATH. Therefore, incredibility of medical practitioners and doctors should not be assumed. However, our experience as a common man with regard to the role of the doctors attached to SSKM Super speciality hospital is not happy. In recent past, more than one high ranking political leaders belonging to the ruling political party were arrested or directed to appear before the investigating authority for interrogation and they successfully avoided interrogation by the investigating agency taking shelter in the said hospital.

Legal Prudent Fraternity