Weekend Legal Updates
Saturday & Sunday, 26th & 27th March 2022
Legal Awareness :- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Part – XII FINANCE, PROPERTY, CONTRACTS AND SUITS
CHAPTER – I FINANCE
Distribution of Revenues between the Union and the States
Article – 273 Grants in lieu of export duty on jute and jute products
(1) There shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund of India in each year as grants-in-aid of the revenues of the States of Assam, Bihar, 1[Odisha] and West Bengal, in lieu of assignment of any share of the net proceeds in each year of export duty on jute and jute products to those States, such sums as may be prescribed.
(2) The sums so prescribed shall continue to be charged on the Consolidated Fund of India so long as any export duty on jute or jute products continues to be levied by the Government of India or until the expiration of ten years from the commencement of this Constitution whichever is earlier.
(3) In this article, the expression “prescribed” has the same meaning as in article 270.
Weekend Legal Updates:-
- On Tuesday the Allahabad High Court clarified on Tuesday that continuous practice as a lawyer for 7 years without a break, is necessary to seek appointment as a District Judge under Article 233 (2) of the Constitution. (Bindu v. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad)
- The Supreme Court held that sanction of the Central government under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for prosecuting an offence committed outside India, is necessary only if the entirety of offence was committed outside India. (Sartaj Khan v. State of Uttarakhand)
- “In terms of Section 188, even if an offence is committed outside India, (a) by a citizen whether on the high seas or anywhere else or (b) by a non-citizen on a ship or aircraft registered in India, the offence can still be tried in India provided the conditions mentioned in said Section are satisfied. The Section gets attracted when the entirety of the offence is committed outside India; and the grant of sanction would enable such offence to be enquired into or tried in India,”
- The Court was hearing an appeal against the order of the Uttarakhand High Court which had convicted the appellant under Sections 363 [Punishment for kidnapping], 366-B [importation of girl from foreign country], 370(4) [trafficking of person] and 506 [punishment for criminal intimidation] of IPC and also under Section 8 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act 2012.
- The appellant was accused of enticing and trafficking a Nepali minor girl for the purpose of exploitation. The appellant was also accused of pressing the breast of the minor victim, to which she had objected.
- In a first-of-its-kind at educational institutes in India, the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR, Hyderabad) has introduced initiatives like creating gender-neutral rooms and washrooms, among many other ideas being implemented in an endeavour to make the University campus more inclusive for the gender non-conforming.
- Former District and Sessions judge Sujata Kohli has filed for withdrawal of her petitions before the Delhi High Court, one seeking contempt of court proceedings against former Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) president Rajiv Khosla, and the second, challenging lower court’s order on his sentence.
- since it is evident that this like matter is certainly not on the priority list either of the state or of our esteemed Judiciary, as such the Petitioner with all due respect submits that, she also does not wish to pursue this matter any further, as it is no more her priority either, and she humbly seeks permission to withdraw the petition.
- On Friday the Bombay High Court directed the Maharashtra government to submit an affidavit giving a timeline for appointing chairperson to the Maharashtra State Commission for Protection of Child Rights (SCPCR). (Nitin Dalvi & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
- “The priority is promoting welfare of children. You have picked up IAS officer but has he done something for the welfare of children? Why can you not appoint someone independent?”
- “We are in April 2022, now and your government could not appoint one chairperson in the last 14 months? How long will you take to complete the procedure?”
- “Why don’t you take all this seriously? Don’t you feel this matter is important? You just appoint someone who already has a heavy portfolio, with no members to assist,”
- “We are not concerned with the present petitioners only, we are concerned with children in the State”,
- “We appreciate that you are not treating this as adversarial litigation, hence you have to make a statement about the timeline. If you are not able to, we will not take a dim view of the same. Make sure a competent officer has to file affidavit, giving timelines,”
- The Supreme Court observed that parties or litigants cannot be permitted to take two contradictory stands before two different authorities/courts. (Premlata @ Sunita v. Naseeb Bee and Others)
- an appeal assailing the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had allowed the application of the respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) 1908 and had rejected the plaint of the appellant.
- The appellant had initially filed original proceedings before the Revenue Authority/Tehsildar under Section 250 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (MPLRC) 1959. The respondents had raised the objection against the maintainability of that application and the jurisdiction of the authority.
- the Supreme Court held, The respondents-original defendants cannot be permitted to take two contradictory stands before two different authorities/courts. They cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate once the objection raised on behalf of the original defendants that the Revenue Authority would have no jurisdiction came to be accepted by the Revenue Authority/Tehsildar and the proceedings under Section 250 of the MPLRC came to be dismissed and thereafter when the plaintiff instituted a suit before the Civil Court it was not open for the respondents-original defendants thereafter to take an objection that the suit before the Civil Court would also be barred in view of Section 257 of the MPLRC. If the submission on behalf of the respondents-defendants is accepted in that case the original plaintiff would be remediless.
- The Karnataka High Court held that work from home benefit after exhausting maternity leave, can be granted to a woman employee only if the nature of the work assigned to such employee makes it possible to do her official job from home. (Prachi Sen v. Ministry of Defence and Ors)
- the same while denying relief of childcare leave to a woman employee at the Semiconductor Technology and Applied Research Centre (STARC), a unit under the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).
- Though reference is made to Section 5(5) of the (Maternity Benefits Act), Act, 1961, it is evident from the said provision that maternity benefits such as work from home after availing the maternity benefit could be given only in case where the nature of work assigned to the women is such that it is possible for her to work from home, The employees working with the fourth respondent-organisation are involved in research work which is both sensitive as well as complicated. Sensitive, in the nature of the work done, in the sense that the research is for the benefit of the Government of India which uses the facility in the defense fields and the research work will not be divulged to the public. This itself would prove that the nature of the work assigned to the petitioner cannot be carried on from home.
- Last week A public interest litigation (PIL) petition has been filed before the Bombay High Court urging implementation of the Mental Healthcare Act of 2017 in Maharashtra.
- The petition highlighted the plight of patients still admitted in mental health institutions despite not being seriously ill. Implementation of the Act would protect the rights of persons with mental illnesses, and allow them to move Mental Health Review Boards to seek discharge.
- On Saturday the Supreme Court judge and Executive Chairman of National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), Justice UU Lalit told Coordination and timely support from all the stakeholders is required for rehabilitation and prevention of trafficking of children of destitute women.
- Justice Lalit along with Bombay High Court judges, Justices AA Sayed and SS Shinde visited the Prerna Municipal School and met with representatives from the Prerna Foundation, by whom they were briefed about the work done by them for children of sex workers.
- Justice Lalit while addressing judges, lawyers emphasised on the importance of legal aid, he was speaking at a State level conference on the topic “Early access to Justice and pre-arrest, arrest and remand stage”.
- “Open the doors of legal aid for unrepresented persons by giving quality legal aid services,”
- “At every possible stage, a man must have the advantage or the benefit of qualified legal assistance and the legal services authorities are meant to facilitate said mechanism,”
- On Friday the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Kerala High Court which had held that a complaint made by a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) against a news organisation for publishing material that is allegedly defamatory towards the RSS, is maintainable under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. (Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Co. Ltd. & Ors. v P Gopalankutty & Anr.)
- “When an article is published in a newspaper containing imputations meant to harm the reputation of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), complaint by individual member of RSS is maintainable under Explanation 2 to Section 499 of IPC. It is not necessary that the imputations in the article individually affected the reputation of the complainant,“
- “499. Whoever, by words, either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person”.