Today Legal Updates

Saturday & Sunday, 8th & 9th 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. Courts and judges in India are often frequent targets of online trolling. Many a time, bots and troll handles are engaged to amplify opinions against judgments and observations made by courts and judges.
    • A Supreme Court judge is now facing the same, with personal remarks and fake statements circulating against him on social media, particularly Twitter.
    • 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.
  4. The Madras High Court took a dim view of trials being protracted and said that due to such delays, a message is going to the world that accused are being kept as undertrials in India for years on end.  (Mohammed Asarudeen v. Union of India)
    • the High Court said, What is highlighted to the superior courts and to the world is, accused are being kept as undertrials for years on end in our criminal justice system. None will have the patience to pore over trial court records to find out who was actually responsible for the delay.
    • the bench said, Supposing, something untoward happens to PW1 and PW2, what would happen to their testimony in chief? Can it be eschewed?” We are constrained to record our fears because, the whole world saw a Sessions Judge dealing with the cases of Mining Mafia being mowed to death in the State of Jharkhand while he was on his morning walk.
    • the High Court opined, If the trial is to progress in this manner, we are afraid, it will not see the light of the day for another decade to come.
  5. The Gujarat High Court said that if State authorities acquire a private land parcel of a citizen for a public project, then it cannot say it would not pay any compensation to the concerned citizen. 
    • the bench said, The State, if acquires a private property for a public work cannot later say a no to granting compensation. If it seeks to acquire a land parcel it ought to pay proper and just compensation. In the instant case, the illegality committed by the authorities of depriving the petitioner of his valuable land has continued for all these years.
    • Chief Justice Kumar asked, Tell us what were you doing all these years. Why have you suddenly woke up from your slumber?
    • the Chief Justice quipped, Show us the law which says that there is a separate law for literate persons and separate for illiterate citizens. You should explain the delay and not do this.
    • the Chief Justice remarked, If you calculate, the amount would be roughly ₹70 lakhs (with 39 years interest) and ₹30 lakhs solatium. Did you slept over this issue thinking this is a safe investment? We just cannot let tax payers money be wasted like this when you come to court after 39 years.
    • CJ Kumar said, Okay. So you (government) want us to continue your illegality? You have violated his (petitioner’s) rights.
  6. Two private dental colleges were saddled with costs of ₹1 lakh each by the Karnataka High Court for wasting the court’s timing by filing petition on behalf of students in an attempt to fill up vacant seats in the undergraduate course offered by it for the year 2021-2022.  (Sri Venkateshwara Dental College And Hospital vs The State of Karnataka and Ors.)
    • the order stated, The colleges cannot step into the shoes of students and file the writ petitions.
    • We are bowled over as to how the students come under the ‘care of’ the college of which they are not the students at all. This clearly indicates, only with an intention to fill up the vacant seats, the petitioner No.1-colleges have adopted the indirect method of getting an order from the Court and therefore, have not approached the Court with clean hands.
    • the Court made it clear, But that is not the case in the present writ petitions. The colleges cannot step into the shoes of students and file the writ petitions.
    • the order said, It is the duty of the Courts to ensure that such litigations shall be weeded out at the first instance rather than allowing to be festered and thereby coming in the way of genuine litigants seeking justice treating the Court as “Temple of Justice” and to protect precious public & judicial time of the court.
  7. The Delhi High Court has held that extracting confession from a child about the manner in which the offence was committed, is beyond the scope of the preliminary assessment report prepared under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) and is ‘unconstitutional’.  (Vikas Sangwan vs State)
    • the Court said, Under Clause 3 of the said report, it can be clearly noted that a confession is sought to be extracted from the child as to the manner in which the offence was committed and the reasons thereof. This manner of seeking a confession from the child is unconstitutional and beyond the scope of a report of preliminary assessment to be prepared under Section 15 of the JJ Act.
    • the Court said, Under Clause 3 of the said report, it can be clearly noted that a confession is sought to be extracted from the child as to the manner in which the offence was committed and the reasons thereof. This manner of seeking a confession from the child is unconstitutional and beyond the scope of a report of preliminary assessment to be prepared under Section 15 of the JJ Act.
    • the order said, Though the record from the Court of learned ASJ has been received, however the record from the learned Juvenile Justice Board has not been received. Registry will call for the record of the Juvenile Justice Board in sealed cover to this Court before the next date of hearing.
  8. On Saturday 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.
  9. 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 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.
  10. 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